Council house rant....

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Mnay ar not "net" taxpayers.

Many mortgage holders or those in private rent aren't either. In fact, many private landlords arent. I was just wondering what your point was.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

"I would suggest".... "it does appear"..... The minute you have anything definitive to contribute, do let us know.

If you wish to refute the claims feel free.

Wee_Willy_Harris

abbadon3 wrote: »

So, once again you completely ignore my post and give some ridiculous completely irrelevant reply. Well done.

Please show me where in that quote it says that Social Housing Tennants don't pay tax. Please show me where in that quote i even mention social housing.

Please go back, re-read it, take a minute, read it again, try to process the information and then reply again with somethign that is atleast slightly relevant to the comment you are replying to.

Thank you.

Your the one banging on about benefit fraud on a thread about social housing. I just felt it worth highlighting that Social Housing tenants are taxpayers too.

abbadon3

Oi! No wondering what others points are until you've cleared up your own!

Surely after reading my previous comment you now understand why people get more annoyed at benefit fraud than other types of fraud and will now concede this yes?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Many mortgage holders or those in private rent aren't either. In fact, many private landlords arent. I was just wondering what your point was.

My point was that as a country we should be encouraging "net" taxpayers, rather than setting up entire systems to reward people choosing lifestyles they cannot afford and expecting others to support them.

abbadon3

Good answer. Completely ignore the fact that your reply was irelevant to the comment it was in regards to.

Well done. There are people living in social housing paying tax. Fantastic. What does this do in any way to combat my point that there are reasons people get so much more annoyed at benefits fraud?

crunchyblanket

abbadon3 wrote: »

Not really no.

Considering the point of the topic was disgust at people getting social housing who others deemed not entitled to it. I figure that ties in nicely with people who get benefits that people don't think they are entitled to.

See, here's the key: 'deemed', 'don't think'...the judgement being passed on these people by people who cannot, by necessity, be sufficiently knowledgeable in the personal situations of those people they are 'deeming' unworthy of social housing/benefits. We can all theorise, deem, think someone is unworthy, but until we know the ins and outs of their situation it remains pure speculation.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

If you wish to refute the claims feel free.

Um... I already have. I think the onus is on YOU to back up YOUR opinion as fact.

Wee_Willy_Harris

abbadon3 wrote: »

Oi! No wondering what others points are until you've cleared up your own!

Surely after reading my previous comment you now understand why people get more annoyed at benefit fraud than other types of fraud and will now concede this yes?

Is it ignorance?

abbadon3

Yes i agree. But i'm not commenting on any one individual case. If we were then i agree you would need to know all the ins and outs to decide if they are worthy of the help.

But that doesn't change the fact there are thousands of people playing the system does it?