Interest on Crisis Loans

[_angel_]

I wouldn't have too much of a; problem with a small rate of interest say 1.5 or 2% if the loans were to people who could afford it but were on low incomes but I feel it would be wrong in principle to take interest from those with so little.

This is a social fund loan to people on benefits and very low incomes. These are people who can't get a loan anywhere else. What makes you think this means any of them can 'afford it'. The loans come straight out of benefit, so there is hardly any risk at all to the lender.
Banks acting like bastards fucking over the poor is one thing, when it's the government doing it it is really time to stop.

Also, you introduce a 'low' interest rate as a principle and it will rise and rise.

If there is a need for some form of payback on the loan apart from the loan itself then let that payment be in the form of an agreement to seek counselling for the money problem, community employment enrolment and completion of an education programme.

So, you give people bugger all to live on, then give them finger wagging lectures on how to live on it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is a social fund loan to people on benefits and very low incomes. These are people who can't get a loan anywhere else. What makes you think this means any of them can 'afford it'. The loans come straight out of benefit, so there is hardly any risk at all to the lender.

In fact there's no risk whatsoever, not even if you die, because they're indemnified.

Banks acting like bastards fucking over the poor is one thing, when it's the government doing it it is really time to stop.

Also, you introduce a 'low' interest rate as a principle and it will rise and rise.

With the effect that people who really need a loan just won't bother to apply, because they know that the interest will be taking food from the mouths of their children.

So, you give people bugger all to live on, then give them finger wagging lectures on how to live on it?

Yep.

 

[scifisam]

The loans come straight out of benefit, so there is hardly any risk at all to the lender.

That's a really good point. The reason lenders must be allowed to charge interest is that they're taking a risk by doing it, and that doesn't apply to social fund loans. Student loans don't (well, aren't supposed to) have any interest on them either.

 

[Zachor]

counselling for being poor?

have a word with yourself!

No counselling to help them with whatever other problems are helping keepthem poor.

 

[Blagsta]

No counselling to help them with whatever other problems are helping keepthem poor.

oh yeah, because it must be their own fault.

You cunt.

 

[Fullyplumped]

No counselling to help them with whatever other problems are helping keepthem poor.

"So, how do you FEEL about having a chronic and long-term condition that prevents you from getting out to a job if any real employers were able to employ you, and building up a pension, and living independently without assistance, and never having any money?"

I think you need to think this through, Zachor.

 

[Fullyplumped]

It may just be that the idiot illegitimate spawn of Dusty Bin and an amoeba, AKA brasic, believes that your reply to Zachor that went "I assume you mean any rate of interest" is actually a piece of sarcasm that refers indirectly to usury, what with Zachor being a recent convert to Judaism.

It honestly hadn't occurred to me that this is what he might have meant. I'm sure that Zachor will make it clear if any offence was taken!

 

[Zachor]

oh yeah, because it must be their own fault.

You cunt.

Sometimes there may be underlying issues that are contributing to a persons poverty it could be a mental health or addiction problem or it could be that the person needs to learn skills to help them budget or any number of other problems for example with chidren or a violent partner (although more money may be an answer its not the whole answer) By having a quid pro quo for a social fund loan many people could be brought into education, rehab, work etc. I knew how the grant system was misused in the past which is partially why the loan system was brought in but to charge an oppressive interest rate for the loans would be wrong.

Sometimes people are poor through their own bad decisions. The best way of helping people is to teach them how to make better decisions.

 

[Zachor]

It honestly hadn't occurred to me that this is what he might have meant. I'm sure that Zachor will make it clear if any offence was taken!

No offence taken.

 

[Zachor]

"So, how do you FEEL about having a chronic and long-term condition that prevents you from getting out to a job if any real employers were able to employ you, and building up a pension, and living independently without assistance, and never having any money?"

I think you need to think this through, Zachor.

If someone has a genuine long term condition then the benefit system should help them. There are many others who get themselves in shit through lack of education. lack of self esteem, shit relationships addiction problems etc etc. The use of a loan with some form of non financial pay back obligation such as attending debt or DV counselling or help with medical and other problems or indeed community work for those who can do this could benefit many people. I agree that employers need to be more flexible when employing those with chronic illnesses and that there should be support for people in this position.

 

[scifisam]

Sometimes there may be underlying issues that are contributing to a persons poverty it could be a mental health or addiction problem or it could be that the person needs to learn skills to help them budget or any number of other problems for example with chidren or a violent partner (although more money may be an answer its not the whole answer) By having a quid pro quo for a social fund loan many people could be brought into education, rehab, work etc. I knew how the grant system was misused in the past which is partially why the loan system was brought in but to charge an oppressive interest rate for the loans would be wrong.

Sometimes people are poor through their own bad decisions. The best way of helping people is to teach them how to make better decisions.

Having to get a social fund loan doesn't mean you're bad with money, though. It just means you're on a low income and need to buy, say, a new washing machine, and can't get a loan for it anywhere else because of your low income, and couldn't save up for such emergencies because your income barely covers the essentials, let alone savings. It's got precisely zero to do with anything you're talking about in that post.

 

[Blagsta]

Sometimes there may be underlying issues that are contributing to a persons poverty it could be a mental health or addiction problem or it could be that the person needs to learn skills to help them budget or any number of other problems for example with chidren or a violent partner (although more money may be an answer its not the whole answer) By having a quid pro quo for a social fund loan many people could be brought into education, rehab, work etc. I knew how the grant system was misused in the past which is partially why the loan system was brought in but to charge an oppressive interest rate for the loans would be wrong.

Sometimes people are poor through their own bad decisions. The best way of helping people is to teach them how to make better decisions.

Nothing at all to do with structural inequalities, no siree!

You utter utter cunt. I mean that most sincerely.

 

[snadge]

Sometimes people are poor through their own bad decisions. The best way of helping people is to teach them how to make better decisions.

like what? As a single man/woman with no dependants, you are worse off working than claiming benefits. A job in a supermarket stacking shelves that pays minimum wage does not cover your rent.

Whereas on benefits, you get housing benefits paid, council tax paid and your JSA.

Tell me what would you do?

 

[scifisam]

like what? As a single man/woman with no dependants, you are worse off working than claiming benefits. A job in a supermarket stacking shelves that pays minimum wage does not cover your rent.

Whereas on benefits, you get housing benefits paid, council tax paid and your JSA.

Tell me what would you do?

That's not true. Working tax credits really do help with that sort of situation and housing/council tax benefit is also available to working people on a low income.

 

[Zachor]

Having to get a social fund loan doesn't mean you're bad with money, though. It just means you're on a low income and need to buy, say, a new washing machine, and can't get a loan for it anywhere else because of your low income, and couldn't save up for such emergencies because your income barely covers the essentials, let alone savings. It's got precisely zero to do with anything you're talking about in that post.

I agree with you that needing a loan may not mean you are bad with money but for some a degree of help may be needed and having an obligation may bring people into contact with more agencies who can help them escape from poverty.

I do agree that loans and in some cases grants should be available for stuff like domestic appliances etc.

 

[snadge]

That's not true. Working tax credits really do help with that sort of situation and housing/council tax benefit is also available to working people on a low income.

tax credits are only available IF you have dependants.

the amount of housing benefits available to working, single, no dependant people is miniscule, it is all geared to people with children.

Then of course we have to pay FULL income tax with no benefits to a single person and we get a measly 25% off our council tax.

 

[Fullyplumped]

No offence taken.

Good - they can be awful touchy, you know!

 

[scifisam]

I agree with you that needing a loan may not mean you are bad with money but for some a degree of help may be needed and having an obligation may bring people into contact with more agencies who can help them escape from poverty.

I do agree that loans and in some cases grants should be available for stuff like domestic appliances etc.

No, really, it's not 'may not mean you're bad with money,' it's 'does not mean you're bad with money.' If you're on a very low income, you can be a brilliant budgeter and still not be able to magic a few hundred quid out of the air when domestic appliances break down.

Social fund loans already are only for essentials like domestic appliances or stuff to help you get back to work (like new suits, for example).

 

[Zachor]

Nothing at all to do with structural inequalities, no siree!

You utter utter cunt. I mean that most sincerely.

There will always be structural inequalities that is never going to change the big question is how to give people the skills and opportunities and drive to reduce these inequalities. Throwing money at people without helping people improve their lives just creates an underclass of uneducated unemployable people wasting their lives.

There aint going to be a revolution the best we can do is reform the system so that it is fairer without disincentivising work.

 

[scifisam]

tax credits are only available IF you have dependants.

Not if you're over 25.

And HB/CTB are available to people on low incomes regardless of age. Of course, they'll probably lose the application and delay it for months, but the money is technically available.

 

[Zachor]

No, really, it's not 'may not mean you're bad with money,' it's 'does not mean you're bad with money.' If you're on a very low income, you can be a brilliant budgeter and still not be able to magic a few hundred quid out of the air when domestic appliances break down.

Social fund loans already are only for essentials like domestic appliances or stuff to help you get back to work (like new suits, for example).

I've just said that I agreed with you that it doesn't necessarily mean that the person seeking the loan is feckless, its just that some form of compulsion to engage with help in the instance of a loan being required could point more people in the directin of available help (provided that this available help is there and properly funded I might add).

 

[Blagsta]

There will always be structural inequalities that is never going to change the big question is how to give people the skills and opportunities and drive to reduce these inequalities. Throwing money at people without helping people improve their lives just creates an underclass of uneducated unemployable people wasting their lives.

There aint going to be a revolution the best we can do is reform the system so that it is fairer without disincentivising work.

you patronising cunt

 

[scifisam]

I've just said that I agreed with you that it doesn't necessarily mean that the person seeking the loan is feckless, its just that some form of compulsion to engage with help in the instance of a loan being required could point more people in the directin of available help (provided that this available help is there and properly funded I might add).

But why would they need that help if they're not feckless with money? Applying for a social fund loan tells you nothing about how good they are with money.

 

[Blagsta]

But why would they need that help if they're not feckless with money? Applying for a social fund loan tells you nothing about how good they are with money.

don't bother, Zachor hates poor people and won't see reason

 

[snadge]

Not if you're over 25.

And HB/CTB are available to people on low incomes regardless of age. Of course, they'll probably lose the application and delay it for months, but the money is technically available.

I'm not signing on ATM and won't as I am a homeowner and find that I can make more doing a day or two fiddle per week than I would ever get off the dole, I have been told I am NOT eligible for Tax credits as I have no children ( if I did, they would HAVE to live with me to qualify).

BTW, after enquiries I found out that I would not be entitled to ANYTHING until I had been signing on for 6 weeks and NO help with my mortgage until 13 weeks had passed.

One or two days legit work in that time ( which sometimes happens in my line of work ) makes the whole process start over again.

What the fuck good is that?

 

[Fullyplumped]

I agree with you that needing a loan may not mean you are bad with money but for some a degree of help may be needed and having an obligation may bring people into contact with more agencies who can help them escape from poverty.

I do agree that loans and in some cases grants should be available for stuff like domestic appliances etc.

It's just that this would be the wrong tme to require somebody to go through what mght be a pointless "counselling" process. Let's assume that we're fully in the ESA regime and there already is conditionality. People subject to work focused interviews are supposed to be getting the help they might need to enter work and move out of poverty. People not subject to that are poor and severely disabled. They know why they haven't got any spare money - they are in poverty, and nothing is going to get them out of it! It is a bit insulting to offer to counsel them about budgeting. They could almost certainly teach the subject.

 

[Zachor]

like what? As a single man/woman with no dependants, you are worse off working than claiming benefits. A job in a supermarket stacking shelves that pays minimum wage does not cover your rent.

Whereas on benefits, you get housing benefits paid, council tax paid and your JSA.

Tell me what would you do?

The answer ultimately would be to pay more wages but this may not be affordable by the employer. I'd like to see more cash going to support people to work with especially small employers rather than the great exploiters like Tesco or Asda. The practical answer is to have a graduated benefit system where for example you can earn up to 18k but still get some housing benefit. The amount of benefit you get would go down in proportion to your rise in earned income so for example earn 10k or less for 30hrs get 100% benefit dropping to 10% at the upper end.

 

[Fullyplumped]

you patronising cunt

Why not engage him on the issues instead of flinging abuse?

I know, it makes you feel better.

 

[Blagsta]

Why not engage him on the issues instead of flinging abuse?

I know, it makes you feel better.

It does make me feel better, well spotted!

I've engaged Zachor before. There's very little point. He hates people worse off than him, sees them all as wasters.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The answer ultimately would be to pay more wages but this may not be affordable by the employer.

In which case the employer is doing something wrong, or expecting hand-outs.

I'd like to see more cash going to support people to work with especially small employers...

Fuck right off.
If you're a business person and your model is predicated on taking government dole, then your business model is worthless.

rather than the great exploiters like Tesco or Asda. The practical answer is to have a graduated benefit system where for example you can earn up to 18k but still get some housing benefit.

It wouldn't work, because private landlords would just crank up rents, so anyone who wasn't in council housing would get fucked.