Tories are certainly getting stuck into our benefits system...

carolt

Wrong again. I didn't choose to buy an expensive house. And I don't own my own home. Like you, I rent - because I can't afford to buy. I rent what you have described as 'expensive private rented housing', just like you did.

Re the first point, I have no idea why you think I disapprove of benefits for the unemployed - I don't. I do however disapprove of those on benefits being better off than those working, and of those on benefits being incentivised in this way not to even bother looking for a job.

If you would like to defend that situation, I'm interested in hearing your arguments. I'd like to lay your cards on the table and explain exactly why you think I should be subsidizing your rent too, while you're at it.

byebyedebt

carolt wrote: »

I do however disapprove of those on benefits being better off than those working, and of those on benefits being incentivised in this way not to even bother looking for a job.

Im an accidental landlord, and I still find it amazing that my tenants earn more in benefits, and local housing allowance than I get paid and I earn way over the national average salary. Yes I know I benefit from the rent but thats not the point is it.

They have no intention of working, spend most of the day in their PJs, have a TV twice the size of mine, chain smoke and have just come back from a week in Spain, I kid you not. Meanwhile the wife and I are going camping with the kids to Wales to have a budget holiday.

So Carolt I am 100% behind you in disapproving of those on benefits being better off than those working, and of those on benefits being incentivised in this way not to even bother looking for a job. There are some that are in genuine need, but there are also way to many that are milking the system, which is why social security is in such a mess.

Oh, and I also think we should change terminology from benefit (that creates a nice comfortable feeling that you are entitled to not work) to State Handout.

A._Badger

Perhaps mattcanary could explain, in nice simple words so the rest of us can understand, just why he thinks we should be subisiding his housing.

Because I'm damned if I can think of one!

mattcanary

It is the private rents and house prices that should be lower, not the public-sectors rents being higher.

And nowhere have I said that people on benefits should have more disposable income than those that work

MissMoneypenny

carolt wrote: »

in your cushy, secure council flat at a peppercorn rent

I was surprised to read that most (all?) council tenants get a 4 week break per year, from paying rent.

mattcanary

2 years for me - in the two weeks leading up to Xmas

chucky

mattcanary wrote: »

2 years for me - in the two weeks leading up to Xmas

matt from Norwich - i like your style. you could nearly get into my top 3 posters.

you are the hamish of the benefits world - you keep winding these people up. quality :T

SingleSue

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I was surprised to read that most (all?) council tenants get a 4 week break per year, from paying rent.

2 weeks here and only if you are not in arrears.

ILW

mattcanary wrote: »

It is the private rents and house prices that should be lower, not the public-sectors rents being higher.

And nowhere have I said that people on benefits should have more disposable income than those that work

Still not answered why you think your rent should be subsidised by others.

beecher2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I was surprised to read that most (all?) council tenants get a 4 week break per year, from paying rent.

When we lived in a council house our yearly rent was divided into 50 payments rather than 52. So it was only a 'break' in as much as you get a break from council tax payments if you pay them over 10 months rather than 12.