Housing Benefit capped at £400 a week!

neverdespairgirl

maninthestreet wrote: »

....no, they can find a CHEAPER place to live. It will mean, however, no asylum seekers living in millionaires' mansions in London - which is a good thing.

Very few of them anyway.
Asylum-seekers don't get HB, or other mainstream benefits.

They are accommodated by NASS, and it's very, very rare indeed for NASS to provide any accommodation at all in London or SE England. Asylum-seekers are "dispersed" all over the place, lots to places like Stoke and Glasgow.

johnny_storm

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Of course, the real question is why SHOULDN'T they?

Because they are scum and should be living in boxes on the street? Not making hard workers lives worse by stealing their income via taxation.

There is no reason anyone should be living on benefits in the capital. Send them to Scotland or somewhere else cheap no one wants to live.

C_Mababejive

hellokitty08 wrote: »

I have already seen people moaning about this, but can anyone give me an exmaple of where you cant find a 4 bed house to rent for under £1,600 a month?

I just want to know really. I am not saying you can, I just wanted to know where.

Easy peasy...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29873075.html


Dilemma>> Should someone who isnt working but claiming HB be able to live in this nice detached 4 bedroomed new home whilst I,who work all hours and have never been out of work ,lives in a small terraced home?

missile

Why should I pay more tax to support neardo wells with nothing better to do than beget more kids?

Fang_3

Old_Git wrote: »

when I was a growing up my parents had 5 children in a 3 bedroom house .Four boys in one room .No one from the bedroom patrol council said your not allowed to do that .Guess what ,its a good way of learning to share .
whats wrong with getting a sofa bed and using the living room as a fourth bedroom .
Why do they all expect a room off there own ,and all paid by LHA .Or is it well they cant share because they wouldnt have room for there games ,laptop,playstation ,mobile phone ,television ,DVD ect.

Education was clearly lacking then too.

TUS

Jowo wrote: »

Also, that by focussing on poor innocent children it means there's less attention given to adult dysfunction (i.e. provide breakfast clubs rather than get the adult to get out of bed and give their kids some toast in the morning...).

I know I'm being pedantic here, but I don't think you understand what Breakfast Clubs are. It is basically early morning childcare for parents who have to start work before their child starts school. For example, parent starts work at 8:30 or even 9am, some 20-30 mins drive from their childs school. Breakfast club means the child can be dropped off early. I used to do this a few years ago for my eldest as I didn't really have a choice. I still gave him his actual breakfast at home.:coffee:

Jowo_2

Maybe I misunderstood as I don't use the service, I can only rely on what I hear (which can be false or exaggerated). This quite a sad article on the topic which gives the impression some children are just dropped off unfed as a result of family deprivation where plasma TVs are in place but the kids have to forage for food.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/21/breakfast-clubs-school-government-support

TUS

Jowo wrote: »

Maybe I misunderstood as I don't use the service, I can only rely on what I hear (which can be false or exaggerated). This quite a sad article on the topic which gives the impression some children are just dropped off unfed as a result of family deprivation where plasma TVs are in place but the kids have to forage for food.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/21/breakfast-clubs-school-government-support

Ha, well I'd take that rather biased article with a pinch of salt. Its a bit out of touch with reality IMO:

"I hear about cases of rickets, scurvy, distended bellies. You have kids who, when they first start coming, grab huge plates of food and take it off to the corner of the room and put their arms around it. One teacher said to me 'these kids are growing up with parents who have a 21st century attitude to technology, they've got plasma screens and PlayStations, but they've got a 19th century attitude to feeding their children'. Foraging is a word I hear a lot, kids left to forage for their own food at home, and I don't like it."

What a quote!! I think the quoter has made some rather rash assumptions there. I can't say it's like this at my sons school - his breakfast club offered toast and juice only. I'd be surprised if the % of kids who have to "forage" for food is minuscule int he grand scheme of things.

QTPie

This is why we live in a world of crazy rents and house prices...

My Dad (albeit he would be 80 now, if still alive) was one if 7 kids. They started off in a 2 bedroom house, but graduated to 3. Grandad worked a number if jobs, grandma looked after kids and house. Aunty had her own room, the six boys shared (although with a 25 year age range and some of them serving in the armed forces/war, only a max of 4 boys lived at home at one time). Not only did the boys share a room, they also shared a bed (all 4 of them!). They could only afford to eat meat once a week and much of their food they grew themselves (lived in the city of Peterborough). All of the kids were intelligent and hardworking. They all attended the city's top grammar schools and all went on to be professionals (Accountant, teachers, engineers, company directors etc). This was despite their tough upbringing.

A good upbringing is not about how much money you have or whether you have to share a room, it is about good parenting (often severely lacking). Focus today has changed to be far too materialistic, the systems we have are open to abuse and the price of everything gets forced up.

We do need a welfare system in place that protects the needy (in particular children and the elderly), but I think that the definition if "need" is reconsidered.... They need a rough over their heads, good food, clothing, heating, education and healthcare. They do not need to live in an expensive area, they do not need drink/cigerettes, they do not need the latest electronic games and trainers....

I remember that, when I was at school (and satellite TV was a new thing) all of the first people to get it were those in the council houses. My parents - both working, my Dad a director in a multinational company - didn't get it for another 10 years...

We live in a funny world.
QT

poppysarah

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Housing benefit was an absolute scandal under the Labour government - the limit was £1100 per WEEK until the budget today - that's £57,000 tax free. The £1100 limit was itself a reduction introduced in the final weeks of Labour. The new limit of £400 per week is, in my view, the best element of today's budget and a big step in the right direction. I look forward to a further 50% reduction in future budgets - might even write to George and suggest it.

Erm under labour govt £2k a week in inner london!
Thats how he got to £104k a year LHA