Boom-time on benefits: The 140,000 families who claim £20,000 a year in handouts

leveller2911

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Speaking of injustice social housing is a bugbear of mine. Anyone in social housing is getting the BENEFIT of reduced rent whether they work or not. So your five years are more than over time to hand in the keys and pay full market rate rent or mortgage. You can't have it both ways.

I would partly agree with you, I for one would like to buy, but sadly due to f e c kless lending and f e c k less borrowing by "homeowners" I can't afford to, I hope the situation changes so I can buy and my house will be free for another family.Regarding the rents, it is low , BUT how do you square the circle?, if you then raise the rents to private sector a great deal of people wouldn't be able to afford the rents on low incomes so they mat as well give up work and get the rent paid for, never mind ever being able to afford to buy..Question: why have "homeowners" for years been able to buy a house knowing that it needs a new roof, new bathroom etc and then apply for council grants to do all the work.Then after staying in the house for the 3 yr qualifying period then sell the house for a nice profit??????. Injustice ?

It doesn't help the situation when develpers continue to build gated developments with 4,5 and 6 bedroom houses.. we need cheap affordable houses 2 and 3 bedroom for ALL and NOT just so called "key workers" there is unfairness everywhere. But if the devide between those with and those without grows no "gated development" will save anyone from the what will happen.

kaya

I bet the governbent rob a lot more money than that, how much has Jackie spliff stolen in allowances so far?

lynzpower

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Speaking of injustice social housing is a bugbear of mine. Anyone in social housing is getting the BENEFIT of reduced rent whether they work or not. So your five years are more than over time to hand in the keys and pay full market rate rent or mortgage. You can't have it both ways.

Im sure this is a misconception.

I have said this before and Ill say it again.

I look out of my window and directly opposite my place is a "local authority build" I ujnderstand these were built in the mid 60s. There are 24 in the block.

The rent for these properties is about 100 pw.

24 x 100 = 2400 per week.
2400 x 52 = 124800 per year.
lets guess they were built in 65 - so they have been standing for 44 years.

44 x 124800 equals £5,491,200.00

If anything the state takes a profit from these ( I accept rents have gone up over the years of course but this is back-of-fag-packet calculation) There is NO CHANCE that this small block of flats cost anything like 5 million when built and its my belief that these flats will go on and on earning for the government

beingjdc

kaya wrote: »

I bet the governbent rob a lot more money than that, how much has Jackie spliff stolen in allowances so far?

A lot less for a room in Peckham than if she'd taken the Georgian terrace in SW1 that the Home Secretary is entitled to

terryw

lynzpower wrote: »

Im sure this is a misconception.

I have said this before and Ill say it again.

I look out of my window and directly opposite my place is a "local authority build" I ujnderstand these were built in the mid 60s. There are 24 in the block.

The rent for these properties is about 100 pw.

24 x 100 = 2400 per week.
2400 x 52 = 124800 per year.
lets guess they were built in 65 - so they have been standing for 44 years.

44 x 124800 equals £5,491,200.00

If anything the state takes a profit from these ( I accept rents have gone up over the years of course but this is back-of-fag-packet calculation) There is NO CHANCE that this small block of flats cost anything like 5 million when built and its my belief that these flats will go on and on earning for the government

Sorry but the fact is that council houses can never make a profit. The biggest factor is the cost of repaying the capital sum borrowed to build the things in the first place. The only true non-subsidized social dwellings are the ones where they were gifted by philanthropists and there is consequently no interest to pay on the capital borrowed. For example, say a council borrowers the money to buy a flat now, say £100,000, then a rent of £100 per week will not pay interest on the corporation bond let alone the on-going admin and up keep costs.

terryw

lynzpower

Sorry but the fact is that council houses can never make a profit. The biggest factor is the cost of repaying the capital sum borrowed to build the things in the first place. The only true non-subsidized social dwellings are the ones where they were gifted by philanthropists and there is consequently no interest to pay on the capital borrowed. For example, say a council borrowers the money to buy a flat now, say £100,000, then a rent of £100 per week will not pay interest on the corporation bond let alone the on-going admin and up keep costs.

So what happens when the cxorporation bond is paid off? unless of course it is from "cash reserves" which I know some LAs have for building schemes.

Do they just get demolished?

Broken_hearted

Lynz its not about the build cost its the cost in relation to renting elsewhere.

churchrat

leveller2911 wrote: »

"I totally agree with "lifeisbutadream" your wrong broken hearted, when your self employed you have to carry on, you can't take "sickies"you don't get paid leave, No one and I mean no one has said on any post on this thread that there are't genuine cases , BUT and its a big but there are a lot of people who are playing the system and if they weren't there may be a bit more in the "pot" to help out genuine people.It is a FACT that if you add up all the benefits a lot of people get it will add up to £20k a year, its easy to just let the taxpayer (MUG) to keep on paying out.

I actually think everyone should be self employed, if you don't work you don't get paid, that would concentrate peoples minds a little more on what is important.People will always need a form of "welfare" at some point in there lives, we should all be entitled to say 5yrs of "welfare" during your working life ,after you have used your "quota" your on your own, its down to you as an individual to plan your life."




yes--bring back the work houses and children starving in the streets. Also, on levellers plan--don't get an illnes that would last longer than 5 yrs.

lynzpower

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Lynz its not about the build cost its the cost in relation to renting elsewhere.

yes, but the cost of renting elsewhere is not someone "being subsidised"

eg mother has a works canteen. The company that she works for bascially pays 2.00 per day to the catering company - per head- to ensure that the canteen offers meals for low costs. Therfore the cost of the food costs less than the ingredients ++ staffing.

My employer subsidised my accomodation. That means that the share I would pay, is paid FOR ME by my employer.

This does not apply at all to state housing.

Buying a property generally involves a profit level somewhere - remember the huge profits announmced by our building companies- how did they do it- same as any other profit making organisation- by charging something more than cost.

If anyone has "subsidised housing" its those like me in tied accomodations.

Those renting on ASTs are not "not being subsidised" they are simply paying a market rate.

lynzpower

churchrat wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

"I totally agree with "lifeisbutadream" your wrong broken hearted, when your self employed you have to carry on, you can't take "sickies"you don't get paid leave, No one and I mean no one has said on any post on this thread that there are't genuine cases , BUT and its a big but there are a lot of people who are playing the system and if they weren't there may be a bit more in the "pot" to help out genuine people.It is a FACT that if you add up all the benefits a lot of people get it will add up to £20k a year, its easy to just let the taxpayer (MUG) to keep on paying out.

I actually think everyone should be self employed, if you don't work you don't get paid, that would concentrate peoples minds a little more on what is important.People will always need a form of "welfare" at some point in there lives, we should all be entitled to say 5yrs of "welfare" during your working life ,after you have used your "quota" your on your own, its down to you as an individual to plan your life."




yes--bring back the work houses and children starving in the streets. Also, on levellers plan--don't get an illnes that would last longer than 5 yrs.

Heres an interesting article I read today on this point:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/welcome-to-joblessville-usa-1609197.html

Several of their RV-building colleagues are already homeless and living at the Faith Mission. Others come by every day just to eat. "We're all in good spirits," said Chris Jordan, 47. "And we know that the church will step in and help anyone in danger of losing their house. But how many can they help if this goes on?"
A former RV salesman, Kent Clark, is weary of handing his CV to potential employers; now he is worried about his unemployment payments running out. The payments are supposed to end after six months but there is talk of an extension. He cannot hide the deep stains of worry under his eyes as he eats lunch at the Mission.
"We find ways to save money," said Buster Coleman, 58. "First you turn down the thermostat on the furnace so that it won't come on even when it's freezing outside and you wear lots of clothes in the house." Another friend, Bob Martz, 47, who has a serious illness, said: "I cancelled the land line, the cable. But I'm worried about my health insurance, I don't know how I'm going to pay it."