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

sss555s

dori2o wrote: »

This is why they need to legislate on the rents private landlords can charge.

Surely it's fair that the market decides. Any manipulation would be unfair to one side or the other.

There seems to be a pretty good "living standards" policy which isn't always adhered to by the landlord which could be punished harder for non compliance.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do us all a favour and just !!!!!!

and maybe you should be doing just the same or do you have a little hard thing on there

Graham_Devon wrote: »

if you have chance inbetween grabbing another box of tissues.

ps.... i'm sure Carol is big enough to deal with it herself...

worried_jim

MrEnglish wrote: »

What effect will all these cuts have long term? Cutting all these benefits will mean less money going to places that it used to.

More civil unrest is also a possibility.

Imperial Tobacco and Bacardi ?

lemonjelly

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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

beecher2 wrote: »

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.

Having worked both for a HA, & also a benefits dept in a LA, I can confirm that HA/LA rents are calculated on an annual basis, & then divided into how many weeks the LA/HA charges in the year.

In example, it'll calculate the annual rent based upon a weekly rent on £80. Multiply that by 52 = 4160. However the rent free week policy means rent is charged over 50 weeks, with 2 rent free weeks. Therefore 4160 divided by 50 = 83.20.

The notion of rent free weeks was introduced because LA's/HA's were aware (at the time) that there were particular pressure points in the year for their tenants (as their tenants were as is traditionally believed, low income earners). These were around christmas, & also end of august/start of september. It was surmised that the reason was pressures of christmas costs, and/or school uniforms. Historic patterns showed these times were the greatest times for missed rent payments. This meant that rent collection departments had major spikes in their workload at this time. The idea was introduced to ease pressure on the tenants, & also on the staffing costs.

Housing benefit is adjusted accordingly - all hb forms ask the question about rent free weeks.

dori2o wrote: »

This is why they need to legislate on the rents private landlords can charge.

I said this earlier I believe. This notion of excessive rents only came about with thatchers idea that the free market will resolve out housing shortage when she abolished fair rents & introduced the market rent. This has lead to chronic underfunding in the social housing sector (worsened by right to buy - the profits of which were never returned to the national housing budget) & massive profits being made by extortionate rent levels charged by private LL's, all of whom are making a killing from housing benefit funding all this.

Equally bad is the poor quality of housing let by many (please note, many, not all!) private LL's, with condemned properties being let, no gas safety certs and so on.

In addition to addressing the rent levels issue, minimum standards need to be set and enforced that private LL's need to adhere to.

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

and maybe you should be doing just the same or do you have a little hard thing on there



ps.... i'm sure Carol is big enough to deal with it herself...

Chucky, you might notice that Devon only gets involved when I have a rumble with carolt, not when anyone else does, and let's face it carolt rumbles with pretty much everyone except the bear gang.

He does this because I outted him as a deliberate and serial thread wrecker, who pretends to be completely stupid in order to get his debate opponent to have to explain the simplest thing to him, causing confusion on the thread and making the thread go off on a tangeant. I noticed today that he's doing this in a discussion with you on a different thread. He was annoyed that I pointed this out and so takes every opportunity to have a go at me. That's fine though, I have broad shoulders

It's sad though that Devon only protects poor carolt just when I'm involved. Bit of a hypocrite for him not to be consistent, but then perhaps he realises that as carolt has 10 arguments a day (depending on how much her husband has ignored her and how many times she has been on the vibe) he would be doing nothing else on MSE other than stepping into carolt arguments. :rotfl:

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Maybe your wife will take you back, Dithering Dad. You don't need to fixate on strange women on the internet like this, you really don't.

I'm not married, carolt. I have a girlfriend and no kids (and don't plan to have any kids - the world is overpopulated already), yet I still cannot dedicate as much time to MSE as you do with a hubby and THREE kids to look after. I'm sure my GF would feel quite neglected if I was on here as much as yourself, possibly even as much as your hubby and kids feel. tut tut what an appalling mother!

No inconsistences in my back story carolt. I bought a house with my GF in Hays last year. All of it well documented on MSE should you care to check (I was a FTBer and so asked a lot of questions when I first arrived about the procedure of buying a house). Don't you find that it's much easier to remember what you've told people when it's actually true. You should try it some time .

SingleSue

beecher2 wrote: »

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.

Reading the small print, that is actually how ours is worked...so in reality, although it appears we are getting two weeks off, we aren't, the extra 2 weeks are tacked onto the other 50 week payments.

If you in arrears though, on those weeks where payments are not required because they have been tacked on, you still have to pay so you catch up quicker.

Well that will explain why it isn't a round number then!

chucky

SingleSue wrote: »

Reading the small print, that is actually how ours is worked...so in reality, although it appears we are getting two weeks off, we aren't, the extra 2 weeks are tacked onto the other 50 week payments.

i can't see why anyone would have a problem with this

lemonjelly

I've said before, there are a number of people posting on this thread who (by the nature of their posts) clearly don't understand the benefits system, how it operates, why it is there, etc.

So, a little education. How many welfare benefits are there? Not including tax credits? 23.

The government is interested in creating one benefit to fit all working age people.

Here is their initial report & evidence http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_659.asp

Please, click on the link, have a read, come back & contribute following that.

In my view, the one size fits all benefit will never happen. Not a chance. Too many variables. The legislation will be too complex, & too lengthy. People won't be able to understand it properly. IMO of course.

mogwai82

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the cuts are nowhere near enough. they should have just cut all benefits by 50% and stopped them all, except disability, after 12 months.

if anyone on benefits has luxuries like a tv then they have too much money and do not need benefits.

no one living solely on benefits should have money to allow them to smoke. i gave up because they were getting too expensive. how can benefit scum afford them?

I like how anyone on benefits is immediately scum. I was married. mortgage and 3 kids. I decided to leave him and was forced for the short term onto benefits and was shocked at the attitude of people like you that lumps everyone into a scum bracket!