[Sloper]

Sorry forgot to add the data. Sorry about the formating and spelling, been on the 'phone having my ear chewed by a wignien, lying prole,

ONS data

Household income and expenditure by income decile group (based on weighted data)                                       2012                                                
United Kingdom                                                                                       
                                                                                       
         Lowest   Second   Third   Fourth   Fifth   Sixth   Seventh   Eighth   Ninth   Highest   All                                                
Gross income decile group         ten   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   ten   house-                                                
         per cent   group   group   group   group   group   group   group   group   per cent   holds                                                
                                                                                       
Lower boundary of group (£ per week)            170   256   342   438   542   673   818   1,024   1,397                                                   
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
Weighted number of households (thousands)         2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   26,410                                                
Total number of households in sample         520   550   570   580   590   570   560   550   550   550   5,600                                                
Total number of persons         680   870   1,110   1,270   1,420   1,460   1,530   1,590   1,590   1,680   13,180                                                
Total number of adults         590   710   880   1,000   1,080   1,120   1,160   1,210   1,200   1,260   10,200                                                
                                                                                       
Weighted average number of persons per household         1.3   1.6   1.9   2.2   2.4   2.5   2.7   2.9   2.9   3.1   2.3                                                
                                                                        
                                                                        
Commodity or service         Average weekly household expenditure (£)                                                               
                                                                        
                                                                        
Disposable income + Housing Benefit         124.50   213.40   291.40   362.40   440.00   529.60   632.00   756.60   949.30   1697.50   599.70                                 
Number of  recording households in sample         520   550   570   580   590   570   560   550   550   550   5,590                                 
Weighted number of recording households (thousands)         2,620   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   26,400                                 
                                                                        
Fuel and power         14.80   17.90   19.40   20.50   23.00   23.90   24.50   26.80   27.40   33.60   23.20                                 
Number of  recording households in sample         440   500   530   550   570   560   540   540   540   550   5,310                                 
Weighted number of recording households (thousands)         2,230   2,410   2,420   2,460   2,510   2,560   2,540   2,570   2,600   2,630   24,920                                 
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
         Lowest   Second   Third   Fourth   Fifth   Sixth   Seventh   Eighth   Ninth   Highest   All                                 
Disposable income decile group         ten   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   decile   ten   house-                                 
         per cent   group   group   group   group   group   group   group   group   per cent   holds                                 
                                                                        
Lower boundary of group (£ per week)            168   244   315   396   477   578   689   833   1,104                                    
                                                                        
                                                                        
Weighted number of households (thousands)         2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,650   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   26,410                                 
Total number of households in sample         520   550   560   590   580   590   560   540   560   550   5,600                                 
Total number of persons         670   840   1,050   1,270   1,400   1,510   1,520   1,590   1,620   1,710   13,180                                 
Total number of adults         590   690   840   990   1,070   1,130   1,160   1,190   1,230   1,300   10,200                                 
                                                                        
Weighted average number of persons per household         1.3   1.5   1.9   2.1   2.4   2.5   2.7   2.9   2.9   3.2   2.3                                 
                                                                        
                                                                        
Commodity or service         Average weekly household expenditure (£)                                                               
                                                                        
                                                                        
Disposable income + Housing Benefit         122.70   211.70   289.60   359.10   437.80   525.90   632.10   755.70   950.70   1710.60   599.70                                 
Number of  recording households in sample         520   550   560   590   580   590   560   540   560   550   5,590                                 
Weighted number of recording households (thousands)         2,620   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,650   2,640   2,640   2,640   2,640   26,400                                 
                                                                        
Fuel and power         15.10   18.00   18.10   22.00   22.40   23.20   24.40   26.70   28.10   33.70   23.20                                 
Number of  recording households in sample         440   490   510   560   560   570   550   530   550   550   5,310                                 
Weighted number of recording households (thousands)         2,230   2,400   2,410   2,490   2,510   2,520   2,580   2,550   2,590   2,630   24,920                                 
                                                                        
Please see Notes for conventions used in this report.                                                                        




ONS, Living Costs and Food Survey 2012,   © Crown copyright 2014                                                                        

[psychomansam]

I couldn't see their data or reasoning, but by and large I'd expect their conclusions to be a steaming pile of 

let's just look at one aspect "While income tax and national insurance are broadly progressive, the bottom 10% of households pay roughly 23% of their gross household income in indirect taxes on consumption"

Let's assume that the <10% have on wage earner on 40 hours per week NMW (£6.31) so £11800 per year.

If we take 23% of that, that's £2700.  Now since the majority of indirect tax that they're likely to be paying is VAT (o.k. there'll be some IPT and the VAT rate is lower for heating fuel etc) the value of the vatable goods that they'd need to purchase in order to pay £2700 in VAT is >£14,000.

I'd also suggest that the authors don't have a good grasp of numbers re the relativity of CT vs Income

I imagine the rest of the report is similarly bollocks; can anyone actually point me to their figures?

You've forgotten about National Insurance and income Tax.
And fuel duty is about 70%.
And also high rates on booze and gaspers.

The figures stack up if you work them out even slightly properly.

The figuers don't stack up at all.

The ONS say that the average spend on fuel & power for the <10% is £14.80 per week.  Assuming that this is all at the higher rate of VAT i.e. 20% then they're spending c. £2 per week on VAT on fuel i.e. about 1.5% of their disposable income. 

That then leaves another £13.50 per week of VAT.   Unless the stereotype of the doley scum spending all their money on fags booze and take away food is true then these figures are a load of bollocks.

While doley scum myself I have to say I bucked the trend, spending the money on climbing walls and entertaining myself with the local library, but yes, the poorest in society are the most likely to drink, smoke and gamble. Also, they're likely to have an unhealthy diet, and this entail eating more VAT standard-rated foods.

As an amusing aside, look at some of this for virtually arbitrary bureaucracy:

Zero-Rated
Alcoholic dessert jellies
Tortilla chips   
Roasted or salted nuts supplied while still in their shells

Standard-Rated
Semi-set alcoholic jellies designed to be swallowed as cocktails
Potato crisps
Roasted or salted nuts shelled

But the best is the biscuits:
Zero-Rated
-Chocolate chip biscuits where the chips are either included in the dough or pressed into the surface before baking
-Bourbon and other biscuits where the chocolate or similar product forms a sandwich layer between two biscuit halves and is not continued onto the outer surface
-Jaffa cakes
-Biscuits coated with caramel or some other product that does not resemble chocolate in taste and appearance

Standard-Rated
-All wholly or partly coated biscuits including biscuits decorated in a pattern with chocolate or some similar product
-Chocolate covered shortbread
-Gingerbread men decorated with chocolate unless this amounts to no more than a couple of dots for eyes
-Ice cream wafers partly covered in chocolate such as “chocolate oysters”

Amazing!

[psychomansam]

At least we've got a good healthcare system 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

[Sloper]

Absolutely, of all the options the NHS is the least worst means of delivering health care.

[psychomansam]

Absolutely, of all the options the NHS is the least worst means of delivering health care.

We keep agreeing on things. I'm confused.

Listened to an interesting lecture today/yesterday on global healthcare justice. Lawrence Gostin points out that we focus primarily on healthcare, yet public health intervention would perhaps be a more efficient way to spend our money.

He also points out that public health (clean air, water, sanitation) is one of the areas in which people don't complain about egalitarianism. I.e. if you ask them to redistribute wealth for a healthcare system they might exercise their right to bear arms, but everyone is willing to contribute to an improved human environment - and an improved human environment (public health) actually benefits the worst off the most.

Lots of other interesting points too, particularly his criticisms of the WHO.

[slackline]

ONS, Living Costs and Food Survey 2012,   © Crown copyright 2014

I'm not sure thats the correct ONS source.  The Equality Trust cites under figure 3 on pg 14....

The effects of taxes and benefits on household income

...which is different to the one you quote/cite.

Digging through all the published data in 2013, which actually pertains to 2011/12, I think the most relevant table is probably table 16.

A quick check for the bottom decile of the total of direct taxes (Cell B55 £1347) plus the total of indirect taxes (Cell B85 £3533) as a percentage of the Gross Income (B47 £11371) comes out at 42.92% that the Equality Trust report cites.  Double checking the top decile you have total direct taxes (Cell L55 £9190) plus the total of indirect taxes (Cell L85 £6164) as a percentage of Gross Income (L47 £43387) which comes out at 35.38% again the value that the Equality Trust report cites for that decile.


Whether these numbers themselves are representative is another mater, but you can check the methodology yourself. 

The ONS are actually really good at being open and transparent about how they collect and analyse data and with the data itself (even if you disagree with their choice of methodology). 

[Sloper]

The statistics are wrong, the product of the sickening kleptoacry and bullingdon club scum who are engaged in a class war to exterminate the birthright of those to live on benefits while errr while shamelessly favouring the 1%

Hmm interesting, thanks for pointing out the stats (although I can't access them not having MS on the home laptop), those are rather interesting (and es I'm wrong). the question is, should we be paying benefits which can be spent on VAT abe goods like ready meals, booze and fags?  I'd suggest now and pay benefits to accounts that restrict how the benefits can be spent.

In respect of the working poor, i.e. those not on benefits, the question is surely, how we structure taxes between direct and indirect.  Personally I'm more in favour of direct taxes than indirect, but I can see this being a very difficult proposition to sell to the electorate.

Ohh and my solution to the people who are trapped in absolute poverty on benefits, workhouses.

[slackline]

I can't access them not having MS on the home laptop

I don't have MS-Orifice on any of my computers.  The spreadsheet that contains the table I mention opens fine using LibreOffice (free open-source software).

The methodology document is a PDF.

[lagerstarfish]

the question is, should we be paying benefits which can be spent on VAT abe goods like ready meals, booze and fags?  I'd suggest now and pay benefits to accounts that restrict how the benefits can be spent.

this could prevent a lot of problems

obviously some determined souls will swap food for alcohol etc, but for many people it's the easy opportunity to get alcohol that leads to lapses

it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person. Paid in arrears of course - just like most people with jobs.

party time! ?

it will make the transition from benefits to work a lot smoother for those that make it that far

[Oldmanmatt]

the question is, should we be paying benefits which can be spent on VAT abe goods like ready meals, booze and fags?  I'd suggest now and pay benefits to accounts that restrict how the benefits can be spent.

this could prevent a lot of problems

obviously some determined souls will swap food for alcohol etc, but for many people it's the easy opportunity to get alcohol that leads to lapses

it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person. Paid in arrears of course - just like most people with jobs.

party time! ?

it will make the transition from benefits to work a lot smoother for those that make it that far

It's a tough one and nowhere near as clear cut as either of you would make it seem. I struggled through a couple of years on benefits and it was no fun whatsoever. £75 a week + child tax credits and £134 a month CHB. Actually, it was £55 a week carers allowance, topped up to £75 by income support. Lily was on highest rate mobility allowance, but that was stopped each time she was admitted to the hospice...
We also had Council tax and housing benefit, but that only covered 75% of our rent and paid direct to the council and landlord.

There was no room for anything non-essential.

There are a minority of people who abuse/waste their income whether it be benefits of earned. Also, I took back a hell of a lot less in benefits for those two years than I paid in and continue to pay... National INSURANCE, remember.

We are capable and should be tailoring the system to individual cases.

[Sloper]

The problem is that NI & etc have never been hypothecated, just collected and thrown into the pot.

The move to a variable system where greater contributions equate to greater payments has a number of attractions; however from the lefty perspective it would result in greater inequality so would therefore be a 'bad thing'.

It is interesting that Labour are also now looking at a system of contributions based benefits, i.e. pay in more >>> get more out if you need it.

This is fine on the upside, but what about the down side? i.e. you've paid nothing in and then what happens, what happens when your inreased payments due to higher contributions run out etc?

[Jaspersharpe]

it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person.

This is a remarkably bad idea!

[lagerstarfish]

particularly for these people

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315256/benefit-claimants-drug-alcohol-condition.pdf

who make up over 3% of claimants deemed not capable of working

the Daily Mail should do something

not sure what the VAT rate is for class A drugs

fortunately it only costs £25 per week (3 litres 7.5%)to remain dependant on alcohol at 160 units per week

obviously if you spend the full £75 every week you get a free hospital stay every 6 months

[Oldmanmatt]

obviously if you spend the full £75 every week you get a free hospital stay every 6 months

That is a limited time offer only, though...

You only get to use the offer 4-5 times, after which you get a permanent spot ~6' lower than ground level...

[Sloper]

it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person.

This is a remarkably bad idea!

Why? It disrupts the 'giro standard time' whereby people live from one benefits payment to the next, it instills a degree of personal responsibility and makes the transition to work (where most are paid monthly) easier.

I'm not sure about the payments for rent going directly to the recipient as if they fail to meet their liability it will put their tenancy at risk; payments to benefit claimants directly also make it less likely that private landlords will rent to benefit claimants.

[Jaspersharpe]

Exactly! The housing benefit bit is the worst bit of the idea.

[slackline]

it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person.

This is a remarkably bad idea!

Why? It disrupts the 'giro standard time' whereby people live from one benefits payment to the next, it instills a degree of personal responsibility and makes the transition to work (where most are paid monthly) easier.

I disagree and think it will only serve to perpetuates and exacerbates the problem of people living from one benefit payment to the next.

Whilst the notion that it will instill responsibility is well meaning those with a propensity to spend all of their money as soon as they have it aren't very likely to change their behaviour as humans are notoriously stubborn creatures of habit (and many have medical problems such as substance addiction that drastically compound this).

[psychomansam]

Personally I find this whole focus unhelpful. It's an apparent case of talking about what Murdoch/Rothermere tell us to.

Let's ignore the fact that spending by the poor on highly taxed alcohol/tobacco/gambling provides government revenue and a more buoyant economy and that the lack of spending and the exportation of profits by the wealthy and by TNCs is far more problematic.
Let's make the poor worse off so that they'll go out and get jobs. Because clearly they're not trying. It can't be that the serious lack of jobs and their relative lack of education is the problem. It can't be racism, sexism or classism. So what if we have unemployed graduates competing with them even for relatively menial work? Just plain lazy.
And of course, they SHOULD be fighting tooth-and-nail for jobs that often don't exist, even if they get ripped off along the way  ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/universal-jobmatch-fakes-nearly-60-3211592 ) and even if these jobs would still leave them in poverty anyway ( http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/new-uk-living-wage-%C2%A3765-new-london-rate-%C2%A3880 ).
And let's focus on benefits cheats, not the exponentially greater harms done by tax avoidance/evasion at the top.
Last time I checked, the problems in this country were caused by benefits lazy-arses, immigrants and gypos. And possibly the black kids.
If only we were all like those nice successful bankers.

[psychomansam]

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/articles-government-cuts-international-comparisons-public-spending-whats-new/uk-heading-bottom-place

By 2017 the UK is set to have the lowest share of public spending among major capitalist economies, including the USA, as a result of the exceptionally harsh cuts in public spending currently planned. But is this really necessary?

The government has prioritised the reduction of public debt and is determined to keep extra taxation to the absolute minimum, resulting in a much tighter public expenditure target being imposed than other advanced capitalist countries. The consequence, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest predictions, is that while before the 2008 financial crisis, the UK’s public expenditure as a percentage of GDP was in about the middle of the major capitalist economies, above the USA, Japan and Canada though below Germany, Italy, Sweden and France, the UK is heading swiftly to the bottom (see interactive graph below).   

General government total expenditure as a proportion of GDP
 CanadaFranceGermanyItalyJapanSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States200020022004200620082010201220142016343638404244464850525456%Year
International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database
Actual data to 2011 (USA actual data to 2010) then IMF estimates (darker background).

 

There is much speculation about why a relatively rich country, which experiences no difficulties in borrowing over long terms at low interest rates, should choose to adopt such unusual economic policies, particularly since such policies are now agreed by most commentators to be damaging to the national interest (Taylor-Gooby, 2012). While the government is determined to shrink public spending, it is maintaining spending on pensions, health and education. These are highly popular areas of spending and it would be electorally damaging to cut them. Welfare for the poor, by contrast, is being cut back sharply though this also appears to be popular. 

The consequences of these policies for those on low income have been extensively analysed. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts an increase in poverty (by the standard 60 per cent median income poverty line) of the order of 0.8 million by 2015 and of 2.3 million by 2020. This increase will be concentrated among families with children and single people of working age (Brewer, 2011). The Resolution Foundation shows how job insecurity is increasing and wages stagnating, particularly at the bottom end (Brewer et al., 2012). Housing problems are growing steadily more pressing.

In the short term, the welfare state is under the most severe and sustained attack it has faced, with cuts much harsher than those of the 1980s. If one wants to be gloomy, one can point out that longer-term forecasts of public spending indicate that population ageing, staff costs in human services like health, social care and education, and rising aspirations mean that we will need to spend much more in these areas simply to stand still. These are the more popular areas of the welfare state. The implication is that the pressure to spend in these areas will be hard to resist, so that spending on pensions, health and education for the mass will be sustained. There will be extra pressures on unpopular benefits for the poor and unemployed, on social housing, and on family support. Bad news for inequality, and especially for women and children in low income families.

So what can be done to prevent the UK taking bottom place?

Two suggestions:

·       Shifting the terms of the debate: welfare state spending is often divided between the popular mass services (pensions, healthcare, education), which distribute horizontally over people’s lifetimes and are highly valued, and the much less popular benefits, which redistribute from better to worse off (cash benefits for unemployed people, single parents and those on low wages). This ignores the changes in the way people live their lives and the growing risks and needs of the past three decades. Increasingly, the issues that many people confront are about managing work and family life, finding care for children and for frail relatives of reasonable quality that they can afford, getting access to good quality education and training, and finding and paying for decent housing.

These issues bridge the division between mass and minority services. They are not confined to low-income minorities but are shared across much of the population. They are not easily understood in terms of laziness or irresponsibility, and do not attract stigma. However, spending in these areas can help to address issues of poverty and inequality because it can help low income families get jobs and give better opportunities to their children.

Serious investment in childcare might turn out to be a real investment that pays an economic return by helping more people to work. It might also be electorally attractive. Similarly, housing reforms such as a land tax, rent controls and state investment in social housing might help enough people for such reforms to gain support. Education is popular and could expand to include training and retraining programmes of decent quality.

·       Redefining welfare: many politicians see welfare as a ‘burden’ on the productive economy. This is misleading. Much social spending is indirectly productive, enabling the productive sector to operate effectively, and this needs to be made clear, as in the case of childcare and social care or education spending that enables people to work effectively. Similarly, much welfare is seen as damaging because it undermines the work ethic. This is incorrect: the problems of low wages that need to be supplemented to enable families to survive and of lack of opportunities to work are much more severe. New approaches to welfare could be developed that stress social contributions and expand the idea of entitlements as a right. One programme developed by Horton and Gregory proposes a return to a welfare system more firmly rooted in universalism and with a new system of national insurance that rebuilds the lost idea of entitlement (Horton and Gregory, 2009).

These ideas may seem utopian, given the scale of the pressures on welfare. A crisis is a turning point. There are indications of the possibility of a shift in public attitudes, as shown by the Occupy movement and associated political struggles. More broadly, public concerns about fair taxes and tax avoidance, childcare and education, and the quality of private sector provision in training and in health and social care are rising and can only get stronger. Never waste a good crisis.

References

Brewer, M., Browne, J. and Joyce, R. (2011) Child and Working-age Poverty from 2010 to 2020, London, Institute for Fiscal Studies. Also available online at http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdf (accessed 12 November 2012).

Brewer, M., Gambin, L., Joyce, R. and Wilson, R. (2012) Who Gains from Growth?: Living Standards in 2020, London, Resolution Foundation. Also available online at http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/media/downloads/Who_Gains_from_Growth_2.pdf (accessed 12 November 2012).

Horton, T. and Gregory, J. (2009) The Solidarity Society, London, Fabian Society. Also available online at http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/the-solidarity-society/ (accessed 12 November 2012).

Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012) ‘Root and branch restructuring to achieve major cuts: the social policy programme of the 2010 UK coalition government’, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 61–82. Also available online at http://www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln2011/Taylor-Gooby%20P4.pdf (accessed 12 November 2012).

[Sloper]

You've missed workhouses out of the mix.

Only modern workhouses will break the widespread generational aspects of genuine poverty.

We've plenty of old air force bases (and a few old Butlins) which could be converted (providing a stimulus to the construction sector, providing apprenticeships and so on) to provide good quality housing and education (or would that be re-education comrade) health care and targetted support to find work.  Once the person has a job offer they could then be provided financial support to move to that area, gain housing and so on (there'd be greater capacity due to the number of long term benefits claimants moving out).

Simply watching the families slowly spin down on a spiral of despair is neither morally right nor positive for the individuals or society as a whole. 

The spin offs would be massive and positive; fewer sink estates, the end to the culture of dependency, teenage pregnancy and delinquency. 

We could call the supported living areas 'Eton' 'Harrow' and 'St Paul's'.

And no this isn't a troll.

[Jaspersharpe]

Wtf! No it's not a troll it's the most blatant thievery of my Luton plan (from ten years ago) ever.

I've even warned you about such plagiarism on here before. Shameless!

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[psychomansam]

You've missed workhouses out of the mix.

Only modern workhouses will break the widespread generational aspects of genuine poverty.

We've plenty of old air force bases (and a few old Butlins) which could be converted (providing a stimulus to the construction sector, providing apprenticeships and so on) to provide good quality housing and education (or would that be re-education comrade) health care and targetted support to find work.  Once the person has a job offer they could then be provided financial support to move to that area, gain housing and so on (there'd be greater capacity due to the number of long term benefits claimants moving out).

Simply watching the families slowly spin down on a spiral of despair is neither morally right nor positive for the individuals or society as a whole. 

The spin offs would be massive and positive; fewer sink estates, the end to the culture of dependency, teenage pregnancy and delinquency. 

We could call the supported living areas 'Eton' 'Harrow' and 'St Paul's'.

And no this isn't a troll.

Well assuming they get paid for their work, it might be a good replacement for prisons.

If you'd recommend it for the general public I'd recommend you abandon your family, perhaps it's for the best. You're obviously a fan of forced relocation, so consider yourself lucky that it's just a recommendation.

[tomtom]

Piketty on C4News now... (you can see it on C4+1 if you miss it..)

[Sloper]

Wtf! No it's not a troll it's the most blatant thievery of my Luton plan (from ten years ago) ever.

I've even warned you about such plagiarism on here before. Shameless!

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Yes, we discussed this in the Sheaf, and you';re wrong I got in first, it was my idea (ok it was Stalin's really) to name them after senior schools.

[Sloper]

You've missed workhouses out of the mix.

Only modern workhouses will break the widespread generational aspects of genuine poverty.

We've plenty of old air force bases (and a few old Butlins) which could be converted (providing a stimulus to the construction sector, providing apprenticeships and so on) to provide good quality housing and education (or would that be re-education comrade) health care and targetted support to find work.  Once the person has a job offer they could then be provided financial support to move to that area, gain housing and so on (there'd be greater capacity due to the number of long term benefits claimants moving out).

Simply watching the families slowly spin down on a spiral of despair is neither morally right nor positive for the individuals or society as a whole. 

The spin offs would be massive and positive; fewer sink estates, the end to the culture of dependency, teenage pregnancy and delinquency. 

We could call the supported living areas 'Eton' 'Harrow' and 'St Paul's'.

And no this isn't a troll.

Well assuming they get paid for their work, it might be a good replacement for prisons.

If you'd recommend it for the general public I'd recommend you abandon your family, perhaps it's for the best. You're obviously a fan of forced relocation, so consider yourself lucky that it's just a recommendation.

It's not forced relocation, they have a choice, either stand on their own two feet, get a job, give up the benefits, sort themselves out or move.

What's the difference between a council flat with no prospects & etc in 'the manor' and the same four walls & etc on the Lincolnshire coast? (except for the other residents of Sheffield who don't have to suffer the corrosive effects of the extended network of scum?)