Opposition grows to benefit cap
Discussion
Camoradi said:
In theory "they" can. If they have enough children, or convince the local authority that they need a bigger/ more expensive house.
So the ceiling rises with each child, but it's still a ceiling. And there have always been maximum amounts of housing allowance, but it was locally calculated.Camoradi said:
So I repeat: How much, in pounds sterling, is the current ceiling for benefits, per household?
If you can give me a set of circumstances, I can work it out for you.crankedup said:
jbi said:
Social housing creates deprived areas, while losing money we can not afford.
No go.
Social housing used to create areas that might have been described as 'unsavoury'. Nowadays that has been identified and the solution to build a mix of private and social within the same development has resolved that particular problem. Having said that I would not want to live on such a development with my personal money sunk into bricks and mortar.No go.
Social housing doesn't create deprived or problem areas the minority of wasters create deprived and problem areas
Mixing them in with private housing just means that the s
t is spread around so that merely means everyone lives in a st area.The distinctly non PC solution is to select the few scumball families and dump them in one little area of trash away from the decent folk who can be in social housing or private housing
thinfourth2 said:
i sort of disagree with both of you
Social housing doesn't create deprived or problem areas the minority of wasters create deprived and problem areas
Mixing them in with private housing just means that the st is spread around so that merely means everyone lives in a st area.
The distinctly non PC solution is to select the few scumball families and dump them in one little area of trash away from the decent folk who can be in social housing or private housing
Shows the fundamental problems facing the Country, people! We, as a Nation, used to bring all the 'unsavoury people' into one area, this creates a ghetto like place and no go area for others, a breeding ground for crime. Years back we would have transported the unsavoury into Australia, but I guess that is no longer allowed.;)Social housing doesn't create deprived or problem areas the minority of wasters create deprived and problem areas
Mixing them in with private housing just means that the s
t is spread around so that merely means everyone lives in a st area.The distinctly non PC solution is to select the few scumball families and dump them in one little area of trash away from the decent folk who can be in social housing or private housing
Truth is we are always going to have the less desirable elements in society, always have and always will. No amount of political engineering is going to resolve the problem, just try and manage it.
Deva Link said:
Camoradi said:
In theory "they" can. If they have enough children, or convince the local authority that they need a bigger/ more expensive house.
So the ceiling rises with each child, but it's still a ceiling. And there have always been maximum amounts of housing allowance, but it was locally calculated.Camoradi said:
So I repeat: How much, in pounds sterling, is the current ceiling for benefits, per household?
If you can give me a set of circumstances, I can work it out for you.thinfourth2 said:
i sort of disagree with both of you
Social housing doesn't create deprived or problem areas the minority of wasters create deprived and problem areas
Mixing them in with private housing just means that the st is spread around so that merely means everyone lives in a st area.
The distinctly non PC solution is to select the few scumball families and dump them in one little area of trash away from the decent folk who can be in social housing or private housing
Gruinard Island?Social housing doesn't create deprived or problem areas the minority of wasters create deprived and problem areas
Mixing them in with private housing just means that the s
t is spread around so that merely means everyone lives in a st area.The distinctly non PC solution is to select the few scumball families and dump them in one little area of trash away from the decent folk who can be in social housing or private housing
crankedup said:
Shows the fundamental problems facing the Country, people! We, as a Nation, used to bring all the 'unsavoury people' into one area, this creates a ghetto like place and no go area for others, a breeding ground for crime. Years back we would have transported the unsavoury into Australia, but I guess that is no longer allowed.;)
Truth is we are always going to have the less desirable elements in society, always have and always will. No amount of political engineering is going to resolve the problem, just try and manage it.
Agree 100%Truth is we are always going to have the less desirable elements in society, always have and always will. No amount of political engineering is going to resolve the problem, just try and manage it.
So just move all the trouble into one area and manage them that way instead of moving them into a decent area and hoping they magically turn into model citzens
crankedup said:
Shows the fundamental problems facing the Country, people! We, as a Nation, used to bring all the 'unsavoury people' into one area, this creates a ghetto like place and no go area for others, a breeding ground for crime. Years back we would have transported the unsavoury into Australia, but I guess that is no longer allowed.;)
Truth is we are always going to have the less desirable elements in society, always have and always will. No amount of political engineering is going to resolve the problem, just try and manage it.
If we didn't pay them so well it might reduce it. This benefits cap may help with that.Truth is we are always going to have the less desirable elements in society, always have and always will. No amount of political engineering is going to resolve the problem, just try and manage it.
Deva Link said:
Camoradi said:
In theory "they" can. If they have enough children, or convince the local authority that they need a bigger/ more expensive house.
So the ceiling rises with each child, but it's still a ceiling. And there have always been maximum amounts of housing allowance, but it was locally calculated.Camoradi said:
So I repeat: How much, in pounds sterling, is the current ceiling for benefits, per household?
If you can give me a set of circumstances, I can work it out for you.BTW I was absolutely disgusted by the Asian woman on the news today. Receives 'over £26000' including £16k to pay the rent and council tax for her and her two kids.
She doesn't work and says "why should I give up a good standard of living and move elsewhere?"
Well, why shouldn't you?
Deva Link said:
Halb said:
Quite, it's not like anyone can walk into a 26k pa wage. The benefit ceiling should be a lot lower.
Or pay should be higher?DSM2 said:
So there is no ceiling then?
BTW I was absolutely disgusted by the Asian woman on the news today. Receives 'over £26000' including £16k to pay the rent and council tax for her and her two kids.
She doesn't work and says "why should I give up a good standard of living and move elsewhere?"
Well, why shouldn't you?
The wife has just seen that item and is currently sitting on the sofa absolutely steaming. If that was a piece by the BBC to make us feel bad then it failed.BTW I was absolutely disgusted by the Asian woman on the news today. Receives 'over £26000' including £16k to pay the rent and council tax for her and her two kids.
She doesn't work and says "why should I give up a good standard of living and move elsewhere?"
Well, why shouldn't you?
MiniMan64 said:
The wife has just seen that item and is currently sitting on the sofa absolutely steaming. If that was a piece by the BBC to make us feel bad then it failed.
Why should she? She's not a mug. So long as it's being thrown at people, they will take it. Can they be blamed?
Surely that's the problem though? You have people, admittedly a small minority, receiving more money annually just to pay their rent than some poor sod who goes out and works every hour imaginable makes in an entire year.
It's pretty obscene and, IMO, indefensible tbh. I know there are some who would level the same criticism at the CEO of that hard working persons employer, but rightly or wrongly that's the nature of business and almost always has been, whilst this benefits culture seems to be a very modern phenomenon.
It's pretty obscene and, IMO, indefensible tbh. I know there are some who would level the same criticism at the CEO of that hard working persons employer, but rightly or wrongly that's the nature of business and almost always has been, whilst this benefits culture seems to be a very modern phenomenon.
DSM2 said:
So there is no ceiling then?
BTW I was absolutely disgusted by the Asian woman on the news today. Receives 'over £26000' including £16k to pay the rent and council tax for her and her two kids.
She doesn't work and says "why should I give up a good standard of living and move elsewhere?"
Well, why shouldn't you?
I don't mind benefits providing a BASIC standard of living but a good one is quite frankly taking the piss, lots of working people don't get a good standard of living and they shouldn't have to fund one for someone who doesn't work.BTW I was absolutely disgusted by the Asian woman on the news today. Receives 'over £26000' including £16k to pay the rent and council tax for her and her two kids.
She doesn't work and says "why should I give up a good standard of living and move elsewhere?"
Well, why shouldn't you?
MiniMan64 said:
Halb said:
Why should she? She's not a mug. So long as it's being thrown at people, they will take it. Can they be blamed?
If that's how you want to think that's fine. But equally then, they can't moan when it's reduced or removed.
People will not turn down free money. Of course they will moan if you try and take free money away! It is the human condition.DonkeyApple said:
RYH64E said:
Wow, I agree with Crankedup! Never thought I would see the day.
As far as non-workers are concerned, if housing benefit isn't enough for a house in Islington then move them somewhere cheaper, Wales maybe?
Why not drop rents so that workers can live near where they work?As far as non-workers are concerned, if housing benefit isn't enough for a house in Islington then move them somewhere cheaper, Wales maybe?
What are private landlords going to do if there is a realistic (low) ceiling on housing benefit? I don't believe that there is a queue of private tenants waiting to pay full price, certainly not in the less salubrious parts of London, reduce housing benefits and rents will follow.
As far as wages go the usual rules would apply, if you don't get any suitable applicants at the advertised rate then you have to pay more. Wages in London should reflect the costs of living in London, the full costs not the costs after a housing benefit subsidy has been applied.
RYH64E said:
I don't believe in trying to manipulate the market (any market really) through either subsidy or regulation. I've often looked at houses in parts of London and wondered how so many people can afford the rents charged, the answer is that without housing benefit they most probably couldn't.
What are private landlords going to do if there is a realistic (low) ceiling on housing benefit? I don't believe that there is a queue of private tenants waiting to pay full price, certainly not in the less salubrious parts of London, reduce housing benefits and rents will follow.
As far as wages go the usual rules would apply, if you don't get any suitable applicants at the advertised rate then you have to pay more. Wages in London should reflect the costs of living in London, the full costs not the costs after a housing benefit subsidy has been applied.
That wasn't quite what I meant What are private landlords going to do if there is a realistic (low) ceiling on housing benefit? I don't believe that there is a queue of private tenants waiting to pay full price, certainly not in the less salubrious parts of London, reduce housing benefits and rents will follow.
As far as wages go the usual rules would apply, if you don't get any suitable applicants at the advertised rate then you have to pay more. Wages in London should reflect the costs of living in London, the full costs not the costs after a housing benefit subsidy has been applied.
It was alluding to the fact that if the last Govt hadn't deregulated retail debt and this Govt hadn't stopped the subsequent foreclosures then house prices in the UK would be much lower by now and thus, so would rent
We'd all be better off if property prices were halved but it only helps if we stop Johnny F from buying up stock.
98elise said:
You've just described my senario, except I was made redundant in November. I get £70 per week in benefits, my out goings are just under 2k per month 
So you get little more than an eighth of the suggested capped rate that, apparently, many benefits recipients exceed... how come?This is both confusing and worrying - hearing all the benefits stories I'd think I should be OK if made redundant but then hearing from people like yourself rather takes away the (false?) confidence
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff