What are the exclusions from that data pool? Must be more than 5k claiming over 5 years, ridiculous figure to arrive at. Overstretched on the confirmation bias there to the point of comedy.
I love playing spot the confirmation bias on Charlton Life me. From ignoring anything positive/negative contributed by Roland to proving whether Harriot's up/not up to the job to ignoring all evidence that Thatcher was the Devil incarnate/the Messiah...all depending on your pre-existing Lepoint of view.
Everybody does it btw, as humans we're hardwired to ignore evidence that doesn't fit with our theories, the trick is to be aware you're doing it and try to minimise it where you can.
Sorry for the confusion. The article was from the on-line Guardian which I read this morning at 5am. I was sure it was in the "in depth" section but a quick butchers just now has failed to locate it.........I will pop on a link later. It also stated that only £1 of every £33 spent on benefits goes to the unemployed.
Strange question seeing income support is only paid until child aged 5. It is then replaced by jobseekers allowance which is the same amount. The percentage you mention will be a function of how many single parents we have with children under five compared to how many are claiming jobseekers allowance and all the other benefits. What does that prove exactly - that the number of unmarried mothers is falling, or they are having fewer children - excellent news.
I love playing spot the confirmation bias on Charlton Life me. From ignoring anything positive/negative contributed by Roland to proving whether Harriot's up/not up to the job to ignoring all evidence that Thatcher was the Devil incarnate/the Messiah...all depending on your pre-existing Lepoint of view.
Everybody does it btw, as humans we're hardwired to ignore evidence that doesn't fit with our theories, the trick is to be aware you're doing it and try to minimise it where you can.
I beg to differ. I see clear evidence of my immunity to confirmation bias every day.
Sorry for the confusion. The article was from the on-line Guardian which I read this morning at 5am. I was sure it was in the "in depth" section but a quick butchers just now has failed to locate it.........I will pop on a link later. It also stated that only £1 of every £33 spent on benefits goes to the unemployed.
Sorry for the confusion. The article was from the on-line Guardian which I read this morning at 5am. I was sure it was in the "in depth" section but a quick butchers just now has failed to locate it.........I will pop on a link later. It also stated that only £1 of every £33 spent on benefits goes to the unemployed.
Strange question seeing income support is only paid until child aged 5. It is then replaced by jobseekers allowance which is the same amount. The percentage you mention will be a function of how many single parents we have with children under five compared to how many are claiming jobseekers allowance and all the other benefits. What does that prove exactly - that the number of unmarried mothers is falling, or they are having fewer children - excellent news.
It's not restricted to single parents - however, a partner must be working less than 24 hours a week and not claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. The U5 rule only applies to single parents - there are other reasons people may legitimately be unavailable for work.
It's well known that's only 3 per cent of the benefits bill is for unemployment - unfortunately it suits people to believe otherwise. Much of the rest is subsidy to business by supporting low wages or landlords through housing benefit.
Housing benefit is a subsidy to landlords only to the extent that they would otherwise have to charge lower rents. In any event, two thirds of housing benefit recipients live in social housing rather than in privately rented properties. Similarly income support is a subsidy to employers only to the extent that they would otherwise have to pay higher wages.
Housing benefit is a subsidy to landlords only to the extent that they would otherwise have to charge lower rents. In any event, two thirds of housing benefit recipients live in social housing rather than in privately rented properties. Similarly income support is a subsidy to employers only to the extent that they would otherwise have to pay higher wages.
Chicken and egg, though. Both necessarily distort the market, lowering wages and raising rents, which was the supposed rationale behind the benefit cap. It was supposed to hold down rents, although I've seen no evidence it has.
They possibly distort the market (or some markets) but don't necessarily. For employers, it may enable them to keep wages down if the workforce would otherwise shrink. That's a doubtful proposition given that (a) virtually no childless adults qualify for Income Support (b) there is a huge supply of contintental labour willing to work for unsubsidised low wages (see for example the NHS's overseas recruitment drive). It's even more doubtful for housing benefit in most parts of the country where demand for housing exceeds supply to such an extent and the number of occupants of private housing in receipt of housing benefit is such a tiny proportion of the total.
According to the government's own figures, £9bn of housing benefit goes to private landlords against £9bn to RSLs and £6bn to councils. The private sector is the main growth area, however.
According to the government's own figures, £9bn of housing benefit goes to private landlords against £9bn to RSLs and £6bn to councils. The private sector is the main growth area, however.
I don't understand why no party seems keen to introduce controls - or at least some kind of registration - for Private Landlords. Their rent levels are always going to be set at max HB as a minimum.
Thanks Aliwibble. This is the one ! I guess my real point is that the Tory private school super rich would have us all believe that the problem in this country is a vast amount of the feckless poor doing bugger all year after year. This article de constructs that myth quite nicely
Comments
For further examples just view any post by @InsertYourCharltonLifeNemesesHere
Everybody does it btw, as humans we're hardwired to ignore evidence that doesn't fit with our theories, the trick is to be aware you're doing it and try to minimise it where you can.
Say 0.3% of those on JSA have claimed for 5 years, not income support, though it's possible they may have corrected it since you read it this morning.
It's well known that's only 3 per cent of the benefits bill is for unemployment - unfortunately it suits people to believe otherwise. Much of the rest is subsidy to business by supporting low wages or landlords through housing benefit.
Thanks Aliwibble. This is the one ! I guess my real point is that the Tory private school super rich would have us all believe that the problem in this country is a vast amount of the feckless poor doing bugger all year after year. This article de constructs that myth quite nicely