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

Wee_Willy_Harris

Londonsu wrote: »

Thats a rather stupid argument.

Take child benefit, having a child means that there are hundreds of things a child needs, from food, heating, clothes even transport. So child benefits need to cover all these aspects.

Housing benefit is for one purpose and one purpose only its for HOUSING.

My Sister is on HB she has two kids and she is bringing them up on her own after her Husband died.

She is sometimes deperate for money but never has and never will use her HB for anything other than her rent payments, she is very critical of those who do.

So my opinion is based not someone who has her own house and 'is all right jack' but as someone who has seen first hand the struggles
of someone having to live on state benefits through no fault of her own

So why do you feel that your sister should be treated as a child by the state?

myhouse_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You're looking at this in a very narrow way. Those who don't pay their LHA to the landlord are doing ALL of us a favour by re-directing our tax back into the local economy, boosting employment and creating local wealth. Landlords, on the other hand, will tend to use the money for re-investment (ie servicing another B2L mortgage and shoveling the taxpayers money directly into the bankers pockets). I know which I would prefer!!!

People who don't pay for car insurance are also helping the economy then.
Such an ignorant comment.

Wee_Willy_Harris

myhouse wrote: »

People who don't pay for car insurance are also helping the economy then.
Such an ignorant comment.

Not in the same way, no, as a proportion of the premiums paid will find its way back to the local economy via claims. In fact, insurance companies have complained about a premium/payout deficit for a number of years now.

Incyder

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Why?.......

It would simplify the payment method and save ££££ on paying people individually.

It would also stop any old folks with memory problems forgetting what its for and spending it on non-fuel related things.

Also, the govt paying £millions as a direct lump payment could negotiate a better unit rate for the money with the energy companies.

It would stop any theft/fraud/conmen/theft by family, from occuring, as it so often does as old folk generally favour keeping big amounts of cash at home. The less they have, the less the risk.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Incyder wrote: »

It would simplify the payment method and save ££££ on paying people individually.

It would also stop any old folks with memory problems forgetting what its for and spending it on non-fuel related things.

Also, the govt paying £millions as a direct lump payment could negotiate a better unit rate for the money with the energy companies.

It would stop any theft/fraud/conmen/theft by family, from occuring, as it so often does as old folk generally favour keeping big amounts of cash at home. The less they have, the less the risk.

And it would stop pensioners from having any determination in how they spend their entitlement. Many decide to put it towards a long winter holiday in sunnier climes, many choose to spend the money on warmer clothes so that they are still able to get out and about in the cold weather, etc etc etc. They are entitled to the cash, and entitled to spend it as they see fit, regardless of our own views on what they SHOULD be spending it on. These ARE adults!!

Londonsu

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So why do you feel that your sister should be treated as a child by the state?

I have just asked her her reply is as follows

She doesnt feel that paying her HB direct to a LL would be treating her like a child, she is well aware that for every person like her to uses her HB to pay her rent and keep a roof over her Childrens heads, there is someone else who is taking the p7ss.

She believes that any restrictions or rules that she has to abide by the use tax payers money is not the fault of the tax payers and not the fault of the Goverment departments tasked to disperse the money but the fault of some of the very people these payments are meant to help.

As much as she would wish it different she does not have a neon sign on her forehead that reads 'honest person' she knows she has to be treated the same way as everyone else.

She pays her own rent to her LL, but would have no problem having it paid direct, if that meant that other people would not be able to cheat the system.

Now THATS taking personal responsibility

Incyder

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Many decide to put it towards a long winter holiday in sunnier climes

Don't start me on those ex-pat pensioners that live permanently on the Costa Del Sol and yet still have the UK cold weather payments paid into their Spanish bank account......:mad:

Wee_Willy_Harris

Londonsu wrote: »

I have just asked her her reply is as follows

She doesnt feel that paying her HB direct to a LL would be treating her like a child, she is well aware that for every person like her to uses her HB to pay her rent and keep a roof over her Childrens heads, there is someone else who is taking the p7ss.

She believes that any restrictions or rules that she has to abide by the use tax payers money is not the fault of the tax payers and not the fault of the Goverment departments tasked to disperse the money but the fault of some of the very people these payments are meant to help.

As much as she would wish it different she does not have a neon sign on her forehead that reads 'honest person' she knows she has to be treated the same way as everyone else.

She pays her own rent to her LL, but would have no problem having it paid direct, if that meant that other people would not be able to cheat the system.

Now THATS taking personal responsibility

No. THAT'S excercising choice. The fact remains that HB/LHA is a benefit entitlement paid to the claimant which can be spent in whatever way the claimant feels appropriate, in much the same way as every other benefit. It's about taking personal responsibility and being treated like an adult. We ALL have choices, and those choices have consequences. Why should benefit claimants be devoid of the same responsibilities the rest of the country has?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Incyder wrote: »

Don't start me on those ex-pat pensioners that live permanently on the Costa Del Sol and yet still have the UK cold weather payments paid into their Spanish bank account......:mad:

I didn't. I was speaking of those pensioners who take extended winter breaks at favourable prices. An option some would seem keen to deny them.

Mrs_Arcanum

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It's not theft. Housing Benefit/LHA is the claimants money to spend in whatever way they see fit. NO IT IS NOT 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.

It is "specifically for rent" not to spend willy nilly. LHA would not be given IF they were not in accommodation provided by someone that needs paying for.

Not paying for your housing even if you are given this as LHA benefit is theft and could mean the difference in a small HA between getting the vulnerable persons boiler fixed or not.

People with your attitude are potentially causing others to lose their job because there are no wages. How does that benefit the brewery (cos the guy spending his HB down the pub is not really helping the pub that much, just mostly lining the pockets of the brewery bosses and paying the tax man) and at the same time putting a nail in the coffin on another tax paying job