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

ruggedtoast

RDB wrote: »

Not sure if its been said before but 1600 per week rent is only half the story. I bet they get 100% of council tax paid as well usually just less than half the rent. That would take it to about 3K per week.

Then I bet they get child benefit for all those kids plus child tax credit, then he is probably either on sickness ben or JSA income support or something.

Not to mention I bet ALL the kids get free school dinners and school uniforms etc etc.
:mad:
All told I bet he is on the same money or MORE money than a doctor or Solicitor with that many kids renting the same places.



There must be a stop to this madness.

Its a nice idea but it would require the government to make a commitment towards providing social housing and away from the tax payer subsiding private landlords.

The idea is the state pays the "market rate" which is an oxymoron because the housing benefit people set what that is for their tenants, not the landlords.

As stands HB just pays whatever your landlord writes on the tenancy, less the deposit and a little bit each month you pay yourself.

Absurd but its what happens in Browns Britain where small investors get to stand on other peoples own two feet.

The_White_Horse

i don't know why the govt don't just drag them into the street and threaten to shoot them. then they can claim asylum elsewhere.

its a genius idea. threaten to kill all chavs and then they can all go to france as asylum seekers.

I have found the solution!!

The_White_Horse

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its a nice idea but it would require the government to make a commitment towards providing social housing and away from the tax payer subsiding private landlords.

The idea is the state pays the "market rate" which is an oxymoron because the housing benefit people set what that is for their tenants, not the landlords.

As stands HB just pays whatever your landlord writes on the tenancy, less the deposit and a little bit each month you pay yourself.

Absurd but its what happens in Browns Britain where small investors get to stand on other peoples own two feet.

as i said the other week, the govt should sell off all housing estates in and around london to developers, and with the money, fund bigger social housing estates up north somewhere in the middle of nowhere, where land is cheap.

ruggedtoast

The_White_Horse wrote: »

as i said the other week, the govt should sell off all housing estates in and around london to developers, and with the money, fund bigger social housing estates up north somewhere in the middle of nowhere, where land is cheap.

How about the Atlantic? If we excavated Essex and set it adrift over there I believe it would solve most problems.

RDB

Just make a way they can contribute to society.

They should clean the streets for rice and water, if they do extra work maybe a bit of old meat thrown in with the rice. But not too much we dont want them living to an old age.

drc

Here's another one;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235604/Single-mother-living-2-6m-mansion--Labours-housing-benefit-crackdown.html

So, how many taxpayers are paying for this one woman to breed. And once again, why are there rules about bedroom ratios per child in the welfare sector but if you have children and are in the private sector suddenly concern for the children doesn't seem to count?

This is utter madness :mad:

BitterAndTwisted

If there are rules about bedroom ratios per child in the welfare state they are not adhered to. The majority of local authorities do not have sufficient family-sized properties available to move anyone into. I personally know a family who have two boys in their early teens sharing a bedroom with their ten year-old sister with no hope of being moved to a three-bedroomed property, ever.