At Last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mchale

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It's not theft. Housing Benefit/LHA is the claimants money to spend in whatever way they see fit. Should they choose to keep the local pub affloat instead of a faceless LL, that is their choice and they are free to make it. There are, of course, implications with regard to their housing should they make that choice, but it isn't theft from the taxpayer. It's just redirecting the taxpayers money in a more creative direction.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

brit1234

I would have more sympathy for landlords if they weren't ripping the country off in exorbitant housing benefit claims. For to long the tax payer has been overpaying landlords in housing benefit at the expense of public sector investment.

dizziblonde

Just assume everyone is out to fleece everyone else and you don't go far wrong.

Anyway - don't half of the cabinet rent their London accomodation while having constituency homes anyway? Those poor tenants!

I don't go through life having a chip on my shoulder - some people are prats in all walks of life... usually in direct proportion to the height they gel their hair into (so you need to watch that Jedward pair).

Wee_Willy_Harris

mchale wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Funny? Maybe. But true all the same.

We all have choices to make and many of them are financial. We may choose to miss a months mortgage payment because we needed the money to pay for an emergency plumber to fix the heating, we may choose to miss that credit card payment because the car needs a new tyre, I could go on but you get the idea. Why should those choices be denied just because you claim LHA? Isn't that what social inclusion is all about? Why treat those on benefits like little children?

It was predicted, when LHA announced payments to claimants not LLs, that chaos would ensue and the housing market would be brought to its knees as a result. The truth has been very different.

B_Blank

dizziblonde wrote: »

Just assume everyone is out to fleece everyone else and you don't go far wrong.

Anyway - don't half of the cabinet rent their London accomodation while having constituency homes anyway? Those poor tenants!

I don't go through life having a chip on my shoulder - some people are prats in all walks of life... usually in direct proportion to the height they gel their hair into (so you need to watch that Jedward pair).

It is easy to dismiss people with general greiveneces as "having a chip on your shoulder". I disagree with the surpression of young people, and the sheltering of landlords and housing speculators.

Yet you think thats a chip on my shoulder I guess? I suppose you think anti stalin and Hitler protestors just had a "chip on their shoulder" - I mean the state is always correct and fair right? Maybe you think the people in the middle east have a chip on their shoudlers to demand freedom and democracy?

Wee_Willy_Harris

B_Blank wrote: »

It is easy to dismiss people with general greiveneces as "having a chip on your shoulder". I disagree with the surpression of young people, and the sheltering of landlords and housing speculators.

Yet you think thats a chip on my shoulder I guess? I suppose you think anti stalin and Hitler protestors just had a "chip on their shoulder" - I mean the state is always correct and fair right? Maybe you think the people in the middle east have a chip on their shoudlers to demand freedom and democracy?

When was the fact that a number of young people found home ownership to be out of their financial reach turned into an act of "surpression"(sic)???

B_Blank

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

When was the fact that a number of young people found home ownership to be out of their financial reach turned into an act of "surpression"(sic)???

Because we cant buy and then are forced into paying higher and higher rents whilst the landlord elite (politians) further restrict the ability to build new houses, all while rates stay low and nobody is forced to sell. Thus houses prices wont go down, and so we will all have to rent and this will drive rental prices up and up.

Corruption! Its a joke. We are caught in a trap and its disgusting.

Wee_Willy_Harris

B_Blank wrote: »

Because we cant buy and then are forced into paying higher and higher rents whilst the landlord elite (politians) further restrict the ability to build new houses, all while rates stay low and nobody is forced to sell. Thus houses prices wont go down, and so we will all have to rent and this will drive rental prices up and up.

Corruption! Its a joke. We are caught in a trap and its disgusting.

We have X number of households and Y number of properties. If X is greater than Y, you have demand surplus and prices rise. If X is less than Y, you have supply surplus and prices fall. That is true regardless of tenure (though for social housing replace "prices" with "waiting lists time"). The percentage of private rents compared to owner/occ properties makes no difference.

poppysarah

mchale wrote: »

New research launched at the conference reveals that almost nine in ten landlords (88.3%) will not cut rents to housing claimants.

It also found that almost half (43.4%) will stop renting their properties to housing benefit tenants.

Well if they don't rent to LHA tenants, who will they rent to?

Wee_Willy_Harris

poppysarah wrote: »

Well if they don't rent to LHA tenants, who will they rent to?

Clearly, it will be bonanza time for those who don't claim LHA as they see their rentals fall through the floor, while rents in the LHA sector (and subsequent costs to the taxpayer) skyrocket!!