Deal struck for £9bn bonfire of the benefits

Sibley

do you own in Bangkok Sibley? Genuine question. If so, where?

For the sake of disclosure, I do own over there.

No I don't actually.

I sort of want a place here but with the baht rate at 47 to the ££££ it's made me hold back. I'm used to getting 60 to the £££. Maybe those days are gone though.

I actually rent here. At the moment I'm in a cracking 2 bedroom condo overlooking a lake in Muang Thong Thani. The lease was up this month and we decided to rent a house we saw in Rang Sit.
It's a bargain only about £100 (unfurnished). This condo is around £350 a month (fully furnished).

The house is quite nice but didn't have anything inside. I've had to chuck about £1000 at it to get it set up. Hope it will be worth it. We have a 2 year rental agreement.

If all goes well with my job I might consider selling up in UK and buying out here. So cheap renting though. Doesn't make me feel like buying yet.

michaels

At least someone listens to me:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=35260897&postcount=174

michaels wrote: »

Sorry - haven't read the entire thread but here are two ideas:

1. (Easy) Allow those on housing benefit to keep 50% of any saving they make from moving to a cheaper place for 12 months (new claimants could not claim more than average paid to existing claimants for same type of property)

2. (Radical) Scrap all benefits and pay everyone (i.e. non means tested) a fixed amount per annum enough to 'survive on' then any work immediately pays. This could be paid for by scrapping the tax free personal allowance allowance. At the same time remove the artificial distinction between tax and NI.

carolt

Are they suggesting either of those?

I wish they were doing the second but I don't think there are any plans for those currently working to get a non-means tested benefit! -sadly! - only that those who currently don't work will be better off if they get work.

This begs the question - will they therefore be better off than others doing the same job at the same wage, who weren't unemployed previously?

MissMoneypenny

Kohoutek wrote: »

However, I think it's likely people on benefits are being affected disproportionately compared with the lack of cuts for universal benefits for the over 60s (for political reasons obviously).

I caught the tailend of a programme about asking people whether benefits should be cut. A woman in her 60s was quite outspoken and said welfare should definately be cut. When the presenter asked if that included her benefits, she protested that she didn't get benefits. The presenter mentioned her free bus pass......her winter fuel payments: to which the woman replied, that the elderly should not have benefit cuts.:D

The same is happening on the Support for Mortgage Interest sticky on the benefits board. Those who claim to be too sick to work (and said that a mortgage protection insurance policy wouldn't recognise their illness) want the SMI limited for jobseekers (getting £65pw cash) but not for those who are off sick (getting hundreds a week in cash).

Nobody wants to lose their welfare payments, but they all seem to agree it should happen to other welfare claiments.

I was shocked to read there are now 50+ different types of benefits:eek: The cost of all those benefits and staff to sort them out, is a huge burden to welfare Britain.

shortchanged_2

Sibley wrote: »

A question.

All the crash gang. Why don't they just go the council house/pregnant route if they want a house?

Easy option.

Why should I?

I work for a living and really need to move (I am a homeowner by the way). I just can't afford the silly house prices that have been around for the last few years.

You are nothing but in the words of Gordon Brown "a bigoted woman" Sibley.

Radiantsoul

Most welfare costs are in pensions(and OAP entitlements) which aren't going to be touched.
I am surprised and doubt their is £9billion of administration and fraud costs in the benefit system too.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

drc wrote: »

Funny that. Weren't we told by the Lib Dems just a few weeks ago that there can be no cap on immigration since they are needed to fill so many vacancies in the UK? If that is the case, there must be jobs?

If they plan this right around 5 million people will come out of the woodwork wanting to work.

MissMoneypenny

carolt wrote: »

This begs the question - will they therefore be better off than others doing the same job at the same wage, who weren't unemployed previously?

I was wondering how that would work, too.

MissMoneypenny

Radiantsoul wrote: »

Most welfare costs are in pensions(and OAP entitlements) which aren't going to be touched.
I am surprised and doubt their is £9billion of administration and fraud costs in the benefit system too.

I don't doubt the admin or fraud costs.

All these new OAP benefits, should rise from age 60 to 70/75.

mardatha

Oh good thinking pet - 70 yrs olds climbing scaffolding with a load of bricks cos they cant afford to stop work? Wow. And 70 yr old doddery teachers in charge of your kids, half blind and half deaf...Thank god you're not in politics:rotfl:
I have asked twice on this thread, politely, for clarification of this Times report. None of you have answered or acknowledged me and yet you are all discussing it - so have obviously seen it.
Lovely people in here.:eek: