Council house rant....

Wee_Willy_Harris

abbadon3 wrote: »

So you excuse masses of people taking the country for a ride because you can name previous examples of people who have done things that are dodgey?

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz

Really though thats a poor, poor excuse.

There is a system so people will abuse it? So we should allow that to happen should we?

Benefits fraudsters are scum. Pure and simple. I'd rather see them homeless.

I'm not supporting abuse, merely pointing out that it happens in ALL fields and in ALL walks of life. But to tar everyone who makes use of a system with the same brush as those who would abuse it is simply unfair. All THAT will do is perpetuate the abuse while penalising those who are genuine in their access of the system.

Wee_Willy_Harris

abbadon3 wrote: »

WWH - Please feel free to reply to my comment above and explain what you're point was in listing other times when people have played the system?

Please, you have to give me slightly more than a 6 minute deadline.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

If they had to pay market value for the land and the full costs of building the properties (or buy the properties at market values) then rents would be similar to the private sector in many areas. If they are not, it is a subsidy.

Well, it could be argued that the subsidy is actually in the private sector. Many areas have seen the private sector increase rents to match the LHA rates applicable. Now THAT'S a subsidy.

abbadon3

Ok. Now i understand. You simply haven't actualy read my posts. Thats fine. I didn't realise you were talking from ignorance.

I think you'll find several comments in this thread from me, making it VERY, VERY clear that i do not think all people on benefits or in social housing are playing the system. I even used the whole "don't tar them all with the same brush" line you just spun on me.

I'm going to assume you live in council property. There is no way you could possibly be taking my comments the way you are unless you have a chip on your shoulder. So allow me to re-iterate. I do not think all people on benefits are con men. I also do not think everyone on benefits are hard working, honest people who actualy need the help.

My problem is with the thousands of people who abuse the system and drain tax funds which simply shouldn't be going to them. They should be forced to work and earn there own way or forgotten by the state.

abbadon3

I'll give you more than 6 mins from now

I saw you had replyed to another post and thought you were skipping over me! Internet arguing is the shizzle.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, it could be argued that the subsidy is actually in the private sector. Many areas have seen the private sector increase rents to match the LHA rates applicable. Now THAT'S a subsidy.

I agree and it is wrong, but seems to be being addressed hopefully.

Wee_Willy_Harris

abbadon3 wrote: »

Ok. Now i understand. You simply haven't actualy read my posts. Thats fine. I didn't realise you were talking from ignorance.

I think you'll find several comments in this thread from me, making it VERY, VERY clear that i do not think all people on benefits or in social housing are playing the system. I even used the whole "don't tar them all with the same brush" line you just spun on me.

I'm going to assume you live in council property. There is no way you could possibly be taking my comments the way you are unless you have a chip on your shoulder. So allow me to re-iterate. I do not think all people on benefits are con men. I also do not think everyone on benefits are hard working, honest people who actualy need the help.

My problem is with the thousands of people who abuse the system and drain tax funds which simply shouldn't be going to them. They should be forced to work and earn there own way or forgotten by the state.

And, as with most systemic abuse, there is legislation in place to punish those who abuse the benefits system.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

I agree and it is wrong, but seems to be being addressed hopefully.

I'm yet to be convinced. As for social housing rents, they are calculated in a slightly different way than private rents. But that is part of the function of social housing and its basis on need rather than the supply/demand criteria of the private sector.

Interestingly, there are still some areas of the country where social housing rents are HIGHER than comparable properties in the private rented sector. Who subsidises who there?

N79

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, it could be argued that the subsidy is actually in the private sector. Many areas have seen the private sector increase rents to match the LHA rates applicable. Now THAT'S a subsidy.

Oh boy why am I entering this thread.

Just to post that I fully agree with WWH that the private sector is the subsidised sector. LHA massively distorts the private housing market by effectively making all the lower end of the market properties "worth" at the LHA rate - which is set as an average of the market. This distortion has gone on for years and private LL's can make a lot of money (I am now one of them having entered this market this year as the non subsidised private sector margins are now too tight to allow expansion). Even better, the subsidised private LL's don't have the social housing costs.

Cuts in LHA, with the possible exception of some parts of London, will simply reduce the profits of LL's by forcing down lower market rents. As a LL, this sounds terrible but it would be to most peoples benefit.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

That will be because it isn't. We have a well developed benefits system to address those very issues. It's called "being part of the civilised world".

Where I suspect that WWH is that I do not agree that (with the possible exception of people born disabled) that a state run welfare system is necessary to call a country civilised. Outside of catastrophe, in countries with reasonable governance, very few people starve as human nature and kindness means that communities will rally round "genuine" (as defined by the local community) cases of hardship. Such a spirit does not exist in the UK (as far as I can tell) because such local communities often do not exist and people now expect the government to deal with this problem for them. I'm not commenting on which approach is the best - I am merely stating that I do not agree with WWH assertion that government provided social support is the only possible approach.

abbadon3

I agree more since the conservatives have been in has started to be done to crack down on benefits fraud (mainly due to the poor state of the country) but that doesn't mean enough is being done.

Things should be alot more harsh. If you are capable of earning a living for yourself you should be forced to do so.

And regardless of what actions are in place to deal with these people - ity doesn't mean it !!!!es people off any less!