Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

Harry_Powell

zygurat789 wrote: »

I think the original idea was to ensure that nobody ended up living on the street which is, of course, very laudable and noble, however, if the state is going to do this then it must expect to be taken for a ride some of the time. This doesn't matter to the state because it can always raise additional finance, but uit does matter to the contributors of that finance as witnessed above.
We are back into the usual benefits argument, always more heated the higher the benefit paid.
The last one I say stopped dead when I issued the challenge:-
How do you ensure that those deserving of the benefit all receive it and they are the only ones who do?
This is meant to be constructive whereas most of the above was destructive.

How about a regime where you get out what you pay in? A lot of European countries have a sliding scale of benefits, especially income support during periods of unemployment, that is dependant upon how much they earned (and hence how much tax they paid) and how long they earned it. The workshy are then left on subsistence.

It's a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

The majority of the money this couple and others who 'earn' a fortune via benefits is claimed thru having a large number of kids. I'd argue that no one deserves money just for breeding, so your point of how we make sure only the deserving benefit is moot.

zygurat789

I wouldn't disagree with either of the two above posts, something has to be done.
I favour a reduction in benefits but only for new claims from say one year hence so that everyone knows what's coming. I feel the minimum wage shouild be increased, could you feed and cloth a family on £12,000 pa? This would reduce the tax credits paid and, therefore, the tax the govt need to raise.
we are all heading in the same direction aren't we?
It's much quieter on here now isn't it?

Harry_Powell

zygurat789 wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with either of the two above posts, something has to be done.
I favour a reduction in benefits but only for new claims from say one year hence so that everyone knows what's coming. I feel the minimum wage shouild be increased, could you feed and cloth a family on £12,000 pa? This would reduce the tax credits paid and, therefore, the tax the govt need to raise.
we are all heading in the same direction aren't we?

I'd argue that if you can't afford to feed and clothe a family (regardless of whether you earn more or less than an arbitrary £12,00 pa) then you shouldn't be having a family.

zygurat789 wrote: »

It's much quieter on here now isn't it?

I think everyone has vented now and there isn't much more to say on the matter. As far as your earlier point about people venting about a problem and not righting it, how do you know? Many people could be constructing a letter right now to their MP! (yes, a joke - most of us are so far removed from the decision making process that all we can do is register a protest vote with UKIP or the BNP).

ruggedtoast

Theres outrage all over the internet about this. But this is what happens when you sell off all your council houses regardless of the immigration debate.

I used to know an Irish chap, he moved to London and went on the council list. He had some ancestry in London which he told them about and to his great surprise was promptly given a nice council flat in a block just off Oxford Street.

He made some enquiries and found the council would sell it to him under right to buy for a song after he'd been there a few years. He then had an estate agent round to do a valuation and they gave him a conservative estimate of about £500,000 if he flipped it straight after.

I cant understand why this happens to be honest.

zygurat789

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I used to know an Irish chap, he moved to London and went on the council list. He had some ancestry in London which he told them about and to his great surprise was promptly given a nice council flat in a block just off Oxford Street.

He made some enquiries and found the council would sell it to him under right to buy for a song after he'd been there a few years. He then had an estate agent round to do a valuation and they gave him a conservative estimate of about £500,000 if he flipped it straight after.

I cant understand why this happens to be honest.

Isn't the property sold for a % of the market value?
There are conditions in the councuil sale contract stipulating that if the property is sold within X years then X% of proceeds have to be repaid to the council. it sounds like half the story is missing - heard it in a pub?

lostinrates

zygurat789 wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with either of the two above posts, something has to be done.
I favour a reduction in benefits but only for new claims from say one year hence so that everyone knows what's coming. I feel the minimum wage shouild be increased, could you feed and cloth a family on £12,000 pa? This would reduce the tax credits paid and, therefore, the tax the govt need to raise.
we are all heading in the same direction aren't we?
It's much quieter on here now isn't it?

I'm ...not sure...about minimum wage. I know quite a few people who used to employ a couple of people part time, or one part time or various permutations, who have cut down their employment because of minimum wage. These sort of jobs now get minimum wage (or cash in hand, or sometimes paymetn in kind) partly because of minimum wage and partly because of the complexity in employment law and costs of insurances. While I most certainly do not argue minimum wage is excessive, I onder if its better for a family to be able to bring in something to contribute to themselves than nothing. (I also feel that cash in hand to circumnavigate tax and responsibility is abhorant)

kabayiri

zygurat789 wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with either of the two above posts, something has to be done.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of regional policy, geared to the needs of that particular region.

Stoking an already heated rental market in London by paying £1,600 per week isnt going to help working folk afford normal rental property there is it?

Asylum seekers, by definition sought the UK as a safe haven, not a few selective postcodes in London.

We should house them in cheaper areas of the country, perhaps making use of empty property in deprived areas. It doesn't sound extremist to me, or even right wing. It's about good old fashioned value for money.

Oh, and the Housing Officer who persuades families to move to cheaper areas / saves us money? They should be due a nice bit of Brucey bonus for their efforts in the best traditions of MSE

pipkin71

zygurat789 wrote: »

Isn't the property sold for a % of the market value?
There are conditions in the councuil sale contract stipulating that if the property is sold within X years then X% of proceeds have to be repaid to the council. it sounds like half the story is missing - heard it in a pub?

The last time I looked at the right to buy scheme, if the property's sold within 5 years of purchase, a percentage has to be given back to the council. Also, the longer someone has lived in their home, the cheaper they can buy it for.

zygurat789

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm ...not sure...about minimum wage. I know quite a few people who used to employ a couple of people part time, or one part time or various permutations, who have cut down their employment because of minimum wage. These sort of jobs now get minimum wage (or cash in hand, or sometimes paymetn in kind) partly because of minimum wage and partly because of the complexity in employment law and costs of insurances. While I most certainly do not argue minimum wage is excessive, I onder if its better for a family to be able to bring in something to contribute to themselves than nothing. (I also feel that cash in hand to circumnavigate tax and responsibility is abhorant)

10% of men are earning less than £6.77ph. Any inctease in the minimum wage (For over 21 only) would therefore only result in an increase for less than 10% of the working population and taxation could be reduced due to less tax credits paid out.
Govt takes less and pays out less and needs fewer employes to administer system!!!!!

zygurat789

Right now we are in the solutions business lets form our own political party, win the election, could anyone refuse our manifesto, and put the country to rights.