750,000 to lose homes in South East?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

lol - keep it going, you get owned by most people one here anyway.

If you mean owned by some adults posting pictures of mr men and wurzle gummage in response to a post I have made to some of you, then yes, I will agree with you, I may aswell have owned stamped all over my forehead.

It's total ownage, and some of the best on the internet.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you mean owned by some adults posting pictures of mr men and wurzle gummage in response to a post I have made to some of you, then yes, I will agree with you, I may aswell have owned stamped all over my forehead.

It's total ownage, and some of the best on the internet.

i was referring to people showing how simple you are but good to admit the above. it's a start...

diable

Rents will go up, its all doom and gloom.......

millym

carolt wrote: »

Don't want to disappoint - and I may be entirely wrong on this - but I don't think your housing benefit counts as your income so it will not affect whether or not you qualify for free prescriptions etc.

Hmm, our claim was assessed as follows:

amount Govt says we need to live on plus disability premium plus council tax plus rent/mortgage

deducted from our combined weekly income.

Unless the way it is calculated has changed recently, an increase in rent will leave us with a deficit instead of a surplus.

millym

arby wrote: »

You think people on housing benefits are struggling? How do you think low earners not on housing benefit are doing? You know, the ones who actually have to meet their own needs? LOTS of people are struggling right now, why should one group, who already receive a lot of help, be sheltered from that entirely?

I do think that people on HB/LHA are struggling, yes. The very fact that these low earners you talk of are not on HB shows that their earnings are not that low. I know lots of people are struggling right now, due to the state of the economy, but I'm talking about people who struggle to make ends meet even in times of plenty.

Oh, and we would love love love to be able to meet our own needs instead of having a chronic illness...

I do remember working very long hours and earning pennies more than I would on benefit, but I could hold my head high and say I was paying my own way. Now I'm too ill to work and treated like some sort of scrounger because I claim IB, humiliating to say the least.:(

arby

wow, that's how to make it into a personal attack when my point is (as you well know from reading what I wrote), that most people who don't receive benefits are having to cut back. I know a lot of people who have had a cut in income of about 20%. They're not complaining, they're just trying their best to get through it. Why should people on benefits sail through this time without noticing anything?

Ok, you made this into a personal thing, could you (& your family?) actually survive if your income dropped 10%? I'm talking about doing things as cheap as possibly, maybe moving to a cheaper area, all things that many of my friends have done. If you couldn't do this then i'm sorry, but I suspect most people could. And anyway, my first argument in this thread and the one I keep repeating is that cutting housing benefit will hurt the landlord, not the tenant. Every tenant will have it cut which resets the market rate. Millions of private renters won't suddenly appear to take up all the 'cheap' houses for rent.

Malcolm.

Exocet wrote: »

Yes, it was a good effort - very well done to Malcolm. Suggesting that Graham had no brain, and finding a picture of a childrens film character that also has no brain.

Very amusing, and definitely has set the bar on a new high.

As you're on your high horse. I'm sure you can leap that bar, no problems.

Malcolm.

Exocet wrote: »

Yes, it was a good effort - very well done to Malcolm. Suggesting that Graham had no brain, and finding a picture of a childrens film character that also has no brain.

Very amusing, and definitely has set the bar on a new high.

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Exocet For This Useful Post:
brit1234 (Yesterday), davilown (Yesterday), Graham_Devon (Today), neverdespairgirl (Yesterday), rewired (Yesterday)

On a more serious note, it was a joke, we're both guilty of making them.

I cannot understand why you've taken to a passive aggresive sarcastic stance?

My joke was cleary not aggressive.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

arby wrote: »

could you (& your family?) actually survive if your income dropped 10%? I'm talking about doing things as cheap as possibly, maybe moving to a cheaper area, all things that many of my friends have done. If you couldn't do this then i'm sorry, but I suspect most people could.

In which case they can probably cut back on other things and continue to pay the rent, in all but the most extreme of central London cases.

And anyway, my first argument in this thread and the one I keep repeating is that cutting housing benefit will hurt the landlord, not the tenant.

You can't know that. It is likely some landlords will be hurt, but it is also likely a lot more tenants will be hurt than landlords.

Every tenant will have it cut which resets the market rate.

False.

The rate housing benefit is paid at will switch from the 50th percentile of local rents to the 30th percentile of local rents. Those renting at the 30th percentile and below will not be impacted.

If the cheapest one bed flat in your town is £300 per month, and the most expensive one bed flat is £500, and there is an even distribution of flats between the two extremes, the current 50th percentile rent is £400. The new 30th percentile rent is £360.

Do you really think landlords will automatically drop the rent? Or will they just expect the tenant to come up with the extra £40? I'd suggest the latter is more likely by far in most cases.

Millions of private renters won't suddenly appear to take up all the 'cheap' houses for rent.

Millions of people won't be impacted in the first place.

This article is talking about 750K people, or roughly 250K households, which is about 10% of total private rented stock.

chucky

Malcolm. wrote: »

On a more serious note, it was a joke, we're both guilty of making them.

I cannot understand why you've taken to a passive aggresive sarcastic stance?

My joke was cleary not aggressive.

it obviously wasn't aggressive.

i wonder if the guys that thanked that post are consistent when the reverse happens and pictures are posted about other forum users...

i think not...