Bradford Council is urged to help tackle loan sharks (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

So..the Council takes on Provident lol

"The worry is that these changes will mean there is likely to be greater demand for credit from communities that are excluded from the mainstream banking system."

Unless I'm missing a salient point that isn't mentioned in the article, the actual worry is that people are going to spend their rent money on something other than rent and will be tempted to borrow to pay the rent.
I fail to see what is wrong with streamlining the benefits system and why it shouldn't happen because people aren't responsible enough to spend their benefits on what it's intended for.

However, any scheme that encourages people to save money rather than borrow has to be a good thing.

Avro wrote:
So..the Council takes on Provident lol

Don't think Gerry Sutcliffe would like that.
He seems to think that charging 300% APR is completely acceptable as long as they're sponsoring shirts and stadia.

Would this also have an effect on private landlords, I would probably be less likely to rent to someone receiving housing benefit than a private payer in employment, should the rent allowance go to the person direct.

I couldn't imagine life without my internet bank account so how some people manage without any bank account at all I don't know. Somehow we have to make banking facilities available to everyone but many banks are demanding a minimum monthly income of £1000 and buying a computer and getting on the internet can be too expensive for many. The government has to do something to make internet banking more available to all sections of society. To some the Giro dropping through the door is a way of life. Or have they done away with Giro cheques now?

Someone on JSA is paid the bare minimum required to get them through from one week to the next. There is no possibility of saving a sum of money each week. It is common for JSA claimants to run out of money well before their next payment due as there being no flexibility in their budget to deal with unexpected costs. They will often need to go hungry till the next payment. When going hungry knowing there are hundreds of pounds that they mustn't touch either in their hands or in an account somewhere is a recipe for disaster and smacks of the Bullingdon club initiation where they find the destitute, wave a £50 note at them, before burning it in front of them. The government is setting the poorest in society up to fail, this should be obvious to even the most casual observer let alone the politicians. I'm starting to believe that the Tories get a sadistic kick out of such things and the Bullingdon clubbers have form for it.

RollandSmoke wrote:
Someone on JSA is paid the bare minimum required to get them through from one week to the next. There is no possibility of saving a sum of money each week. It is common for JSA claimants to run out of money well before their next payment due as there being no flexibility in their budget to deal with unexpected costs. They will often need to go hungry till the next payment. When going hungry knowing there are hundreds of pounds that they mustn't touch either in their hands or in an account somewhere is a recipe for disaster and smacks of the Bullingdon club initiation where they find the destitute, wave a £50 note at them, before burning it in front of them. The government is setting the poorest in society up to fail, this should be obvious to even the most casual observer let alone the politicians. I'm starting to believe that the Tories get a sadistic kick out of such things and the Bullingdon clubbers have form for it.

The story is all about frequency of payment. If this change makes it more efficient to make payments then perhaps there may be more money in the Social Security pot for those who deserve it.

It seems to be a tactic of the left to keep bringing up the cabinet's posh past, but have you ever thought these policies might actually be popular with the public?
Today's good news on unemployment says that there are 7.7% of the working population unemployed. That means there are 92% of working age people who might be happy that the benefits system is being made more efficient.
Perhaps all the noise over these changes are being made by the left who are being just as 'ideological' as the right in making a political point?

angry bradfordian wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:
Someone on JSA is paid the bare minimum required to get them through from one week to the next. There is no possibility of saving a sum of money each week. It is common for JSA claimants to run out of money well before their next payment due as there being no flexibility in their budget to deal with unexpected costs. They will often need to go hungry till the next payment. When going hungry knowing there are hundreds of pounds that they mustn't touch either in their hands or in an account somewhere is a recipe for disaster and smacks of the Bullingdon club initiation where they find the destitute, wave a £50 note at them, before burning it in front of them. The government is setting the poorest in society up to fail, this should be obvious to even the most casual observer let alone the politicians. I'm starting to believe that the Tories get a sadistic kick out of such things and the Bullingdon clubbers have form for it.

The story is all about frequency of payment. If this change makes it more efficient to make payments then perhaps there may be more money in the Social Security pot for those who deserve it.

It seems to be a tactic of the left to keep bringing up the cabinet's posh past, but have you ever thought these policies might actually be popular with the public?
Today's good news on unemployment says that there are 7.7% of the working population unemployed. That means there are 92% of working age people who might be happy that the benefits system is being made more efficient.
Perhaps all the noise over these changes are being made by the left who are being just as 'ideological' as the right in making a political point?

The figures show that although unemployment is falling so are wages, well bellow inflation, which means more workers are relient on benefits. Would these measures have been popular with the public without the constant demonisation of benefit claimants that is swallowed unquestioningly by people like yourself. The reason that I point out the cabinets posh past is that it isn't past. We have a cabinet of millionaires who have no concept whatsoever of the lives of the people who are effected by their policy decisions.

Having to mollycoddle so many people these days is costing a lot of money, those who manage their own affairs without so much state intervention are already paying a good deal simply to support others. There is a humanity side to this, but there is also the actions of the professional waster to consider, for instance, is someone who buys drugs, has an internet connection, buys musical instruments and keeps animals, being paid too much in benefits?
Personally, I'm not over fond of this new payment idea, I tend to side with those who promote the voucher or restricted retail credit methods. However we have to live with whatever is decided and I don't see that Ed Miliband and his cohorts would make life better for the majority, if their previous efforts are anything to go by.

Albion. wrote:
Having to mollycoddle so many people these days is costing a lot of money, those who manage their own affairs without so much state intervention are already paying a good deal simply to support others. There is a humanity side to this, but there is also the actions of the professional waster to consider, for instance, is someone who buys drugs, has an internet connection, buys musical instruments and keeps animals, being paid too much in benefits?
Personally, I'm not over fond of this new payment idea, I tend to side with those who promote the voucher or restricted retail credit methods. However we have to live with whatever is decided and I don't see that Ed Miliband and his cohorts would make life better for the majority, if their previous efforts are anything to go by.

I'm so glad you've turned this into a personal attack yet again Albion. My musical instruments were bought years ago when I was working. The cat was rescued from outside my home at 8 weeks old where he was sat shivering at 4:30am, I never planned to have a pet. My internet connection is needed for my dealings with the DWP and my drug use is a matter of speculation on your part. As you have been repeatedly told, I am not on JSA. Now you seem to believe that because you've seen my facebook page you know me. You don't. I find your ongoing harrasment childish but if you insist on making it personal please don't do so hiding behind a computer screen. You claim to know me, if this is so please give some indication of who you are so I can return the favour.

RollandSmoke wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:
Someone on JSA is paid the bare minimum required to get them through from one week to the next. There is no possibility of saving a sum of money each week. It is common for JSA claimants to run out of money well before their next payment due as there being no flexibility in their budget to deal with unexpected costs. They will often need to go hungry till the next payment. When going hungry knowing there are hundreds of pounds that they mustn't touch either in their hands or in an account somewhere is a recipe for disaster and smacks of the Bullingdon club initiation where they find the destitute, wave a £50 note at them, before burning it in front of them. The government is setting the poorest in society up to fail, this should be obvious to even the most casual observer let alone the politicians. I'm starting to believe that the Tories get a sadistic kick out of such things and the Bullingdon clubbers have form for it.

The story is all about frequency of payment. If this change makes it more efficient to make payments then perhaps there may be more money in the Social Security pot for those who deserve it.

It seems to be a tactic of the left to keep bringing up the cabinet's posh past, but have you ever thought these policies might actually be popular with the public?
Today's good news on unemployment says that there are 7.7% of the working population unemployed. That means there are 92% of working age people who might be happy that the benefits system is being made more efficient.
Perhaps all the noise over these changes are being made by the left who are being just as 'ideological' as the right in making a political point?

The figures show that although unemployment is falling so are wages, well bellow inflation, which means more workers are relient on benefits. Would these measures have been popular with the public without the constant demonisation of benefit claimants that is swallowed unquestioningly by people like yourself. The reason that I point out the cabinets posh past is that it isn't past. We have a cabinet of millionaires who have no concept whatsoever of the lives of the people who are effected by their policy decisions.

I'd agree that wages aren't rising. I haven't seen a pay rise for 3 or 4 years but my tax carries on rising to pay in part for rises in benefits. That's why everybody I know thought the 1% cap on benefits rise was a fair idea when everybody else is on a 0% rise.
My point is that the government might be doing this because it's popular with the silent majority and not just because they all went to a posh school.

And I've already said that benefits need to be there to help the needy and don't believe I have 'demonised' those who need help. I wouldn't believe anything that a politician of any persuasion says.

This is just going back to the argument that was had a couple of weeks ago when the story about the incentives first came up. RollandSmoke I get what you're saying about the temptation to use the rent money with it being sat thier in people accounts, but ultimately it's down to the claimants to have the self discipline to remember that the money is thier rent and so already due to go elsewhere. It's only the same as everyone else who has to budget thier money each month has to do, benefit claimant or not. The Government is not responsible for how these people choose to spend thier money, that's down to them.

Parz wrote:
This is just going back to the argument that was had a couple of weeks ago when the story about the incentives first came up. RollandSmoke I get what you're saying about the temptation to use the rent money with it being sat thier in people accounts, but ultimately it's down to the claimants to have the self discipline to remember that the money is thier rent and so already due to go elsewhere. It's only the same as everyone else who has to budget thier money each month has to do, benefit claimant or not. The Government is not responsible for how these people choose to spend thier money, that's down to them.

You are correct in saying that benefit cuts are sold as some kind of incentive to get people back into work. When the sick and disabled are hit by these cuts what exactly is the government trying to incentivise these people to do?

RollandSmoke wrote:

Parz wrote: This is just going back to the argument that was had a couple of weeks ago when the story about the incentives first came up. RollandSmoke I get what you're saying about the temptation to use the rent money with it being sat thier in people accounts, but ultimately it's down to the claimants to have the self discipline to remember that the money is thier rent and so already due to go elsewhere. It's only the same as everyone else who has to budget thier money each month has to do, benefit claimant or not. The Government is not responsible for how these people choose to spend thier money, that's down to them.

You are correct in saying that benefit cuts are sold as some kind of incentive to get people back into work. When the sick and disabled are hit by these cuts what exactly is the government trying to incentivise these people to do?

That's not what I'm saying. I was simply referring to the story where the incentives to join the credit union was offered by the housing association (was it Yorkshire Housing? I can't quite remember.) to point out this arguement about people finding it harder to budget has been had before. I haven't made any comment here about it being an incentive to get back to work etc. Sorry for the confusion.

Parz wrote:
This is just going back to the argument that was had a couple of weeks ago when the story about the incentives first came up. RollandSmoke I get what you're saying about the temptation to use the rent money with it being sat thier in people accounts, but ultimately it's down to the claimants to have the self discipline to remember that the money is thier rent and so already due to go elsewhere. It's only the same as everyone else who has to budget thier money each month has to do, benefit claimant or not. The Government is not responsible for how these people choose to spend thier money, that's down to them.

It's a shame the banks don't start simple bank accounts for low income people.
If only the government owned a bank.....

What about the legalised loan shark companies who charge 4000% Interest?....nothing will be done about that.

Yet the Libor scandal? Yes interest rates being fixed by lenders to make more money from the borrowers? Nothing will happen to them as its legalised via the bank of England.

Loan sharks have been around since the dawn of time....where you have poor,vulnerable people who do not have the necessary credit score; these people will always be prey to loan sharks.

The biggest loan shark is the government itself. We've been putting money into pension pots which have proven to be woefully poor investments for the poor pensioners....again legalised theft of our wealth.

Ps I for one wouldn't trust anything backed by the council or it's agent known as Incommunities.

Invest your pennies in gold/silver and commodities.

Learn to live to your means.
Do not compete with the smiths...they have a better credit record so let them borrow to spend.

RollandSmoke wrote:
Someone on JSA is paid the bare minimum required to get them through from one week to the next. There is no possibility of saving a sum of money each week. It is common for JSA claimants to run out of money well before their next payment due as there being no flexibility in their budget to deal with unexpected costs. They will often need to go hungry till the next payment. When going hungry knowing there are hundreds of pounds that they mustn't touch either in their hands or in an account somewhere is a recipe for disaster and smacks of the Bullingdon club initiation where they find the destitute, wave a £50 note at them, before burning it in front of them. The government is setting the poorest in society up to fail, this should be obvious to even the most casual observer let alone the politicians. I'm starting to believe that the Tories get a sadistic kick out of such things and the Bullingdon clubbers have form for it.

Agree.

RollandSmoke wrote:

Albion. wrote:
Having to mollycoddle so many people these days is costing a lot of money, those who manage their own affairs without so much state intervention are already paying a good deal simply to support others. There is a humanity side to this, but there is also the actions of the professional waster to consider, for instance, is someone who buys drugs, has an internet connection, buys musical instruments and keeps animals, being paid too much in benefits?
Personally, I'm not over fond of this new payment idea, I tend to side with those who promote the voucher or restricted retail credit methods. However we have to live with whatever is decided and I don't see that Ed Miliband and his cohorts would make life better for the majority, if their previous efforts are anything to go by.

I'm so glad you've turned this into a personal attack yet again Albion. My musical instruments were bought years ago when I was working. The cat was rescued from outside my home at 8 weeks old where he was sat shivering at 4:30am, I never planned to have a pet. My internet connection is needed for my dealings with the DWP and my drug use is a matter of speculation on your part. As you have been repeatedly told, I am not on JSA. Now you seem to believe that because you've seen my facebook page you know me. You don't. I find your ongoing harrasment childish but if you insist on making it personal please don't do so hiding behind a computer screen. You claim to know me, if this is so please give some indication of who you are so I can return the favour.

I believe Albino shall always be fixity and asinine with regards to his personal attacks on RollandSmoke. He is a doryphore and I hope RollandSmoke can remain phlegmatic and show all on this forum that he is the better man.

If you don't have enough money left at the end of the week, spend less.

It really is as simple as that.

Shelfrhino wrote:
If you don't have enough money left at the end of the week, spend less.

It really is as simple as that.

It's called being stuck in a rut....no chance of getting out of poverty. Inflation eating at your savings/pension. Living costs going up. Lenders who we own are lending us money? Only in British society can this bs operate with impunity.