Council house rant....

DomRavioli

I am amazed what the OP said; you are either Statutory Homeless or not, and there are many many criteria to get in - the majority of social tenants are not there by choice, most are there because they faced situations that made them accept social housing, usually due to a lack of education, work, money or through family situations. I suggest you try harder not to be so closed minded.

mutter

Wee Willy Harris - I take my hat off to you!
I wouldn't have the patience.
I work with a bunch of brain dead Richard Littlejohn wannabes who regale me with stories of how foreigners/immigrants/asylum seekers/single mums/pregnant teenagers whizz to the top of the housing list and stroll into palatial homes at the drop of a hat, get all their bills paid and wads of cash benefits too, and who generally live the life of Riley without having to lift a finger.
I used to try to explain the reality of it to them, but I gave up long ago.
They only hear what they want to hear, only believe what their prejudices tell them to believe and appear to be incapable of thinking things through or actually looking deeper into the half truths and cliches they're fed by their friends and the Daily Star.
Well done to you for bothering.

madeupname1

wrightk wrote: »

oh sorry so i dont pay taxes now?no obviously your the only person in the world that works and pays for everyone to 'scrounge off the state'?

everyone pays some sort of tax/vat etc who lives in this country whether they are working or not and that is fed back into the economy, the difference is that people like me do not begrudge paying it, people can make their own choices in life and get whatever help they need because i know that when i need the help i live in a country where it will support me when times are hard, and provide me with what i need to survive.

Your response is completely purile. I didn't say you don't pay tax and I didn't say anything about 'everyone' scrounging off the state. Tax revenues are a limited resource and the greater the percentage spent on paying for people who choose not to take financial responsibility for themselves through their poor choices, the less there is available for those people who, through no choice or fault of their own, find themselves on hard times. A good proportion of tax is coming from people on low incomes who are themselves struggling to make ends meet and do their best for themselves and their families.

Still, good to know that should I choose to give up work because I can no longer be ars*d to get up every morning, you are willing to fund me to stay at home through your taxation.

madeupname1

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2462375=

Would love to return the favour, but having a job and a life I really don't have the time to search through each one of your 5,300+ posts from the last 9 months. You really need to get out more ...

Wee_Willy_Harris

madeupname1 wrote: »

Your response is completely purile. I didn't say you don't pay tax and I didn't say anything about 'everyone' scrounging off the state. Tax revenues are a limited resource and the greater the percentage spent on paying for people who choose not to take financial responsibility for themselves through their poor choices, the less there is available for those people who, through no choice or fault of their own, find themselves on hard times. A good proportion of tax is coming from people on low incomes who are themselves struggling to make ends meet and do their best for themselves and their families.

Still, good to know that should I choose to give up work because I can no longer be ars*d to get up every morning, you are willing to fund me to stay at home through your taxation.

Sorry to interupt, but...... If every penny collected in income tax was spent on benefits, this country would be thriving. Unemployment would tumble, pay rates would increase, opportunities would abound as millions was pumped into the economy. Is that such a bad thing?

Or would you rather just penalise the poor and, in so doing, remove those opportunities, reduce employment, increase state dependance and create an even more unfair society than we already have?

Who do you really trust to spend this money for the betterment of the many? The many themselves? Or a bunch of polititians and civil servants with their own agenda?

Would the National Opera be subsidised while the RNLI faces cuts if WE had the choice? Would private healthcare attract tax breaks while NHS nurses await their P45's? Would the lollipop ladies be laid off while our MPs enjoy their subsidised lunches? Would female sanitary products attract VAT while the Eton tail-coat is exemped? Would those full time employees earning minimum wage be saddled with income tax while high earners (such as Philip Green) enjoy the benefits of the kind of tax mitigation that only the very rich can afford? Would YOU have let Vodaphone off of a SIX BILLION POUND tax liability, or allowed Barclays to pay just 1% corporation tax on their massive profits?

Do you STILL think that benefit money should be left in the charge of the exchequer, rather than the people who it directly effects?

Wee_Willy_Harris

madeupname1 wrote: »

Would love to return the favour, but having a job and a life I really don't have the time to search through each one of your 5,300+ posts from the last 9 months. You really need to get out more ...

Searching would be a waste of time. I'm nothing if not consistant.

Morglin

charlieismydarling wrote: »

The council don't pay your "bills" either. She may be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit.

How refreshingly honest of her to confess all this loud enough for you to hear.;)

I am always staggered by how many people tell complete strangers at shops or in bus queues their personal circumstances, and how they have 'worked' the system. :whistle:

I've never had this happen to me, but on here, it's always happening to posters lol

Social housing is allocated on housing need - whether someone is working or not, whether they claim benefits/tax credits or not is all irrelevant to allocations policy.

Housing benefit is also paid to those in private lets, if applicable.

I've never known any council pay ALL the bills of anyone - rich or poor.

But, I am impressed with any council, nowadays, who can immediately alloate a two bedroomed house to a woman having her first child - perhaps we should ship some of those languishing on lists in London etc., down/up to that area.

Lin

wrightk

strawberry2010 wrote: »

Social Housing should allocated on the basis of need. It matters not if you are employed or married. but it's not like this~:o

animum i think wwharris has answered your ridiculous comment better than i could.

as for the quote above. housing IS based on need. It is only the people who are not in priority need who feel the need to moan and complain.

As for some of the other comments about having more and more kids to get bigger houses this is actually untrue. Have a look at your local councils allocation policy. a single mum with 2 kids even if they are the same sex is expected to live in a 2 bed up until one of the children is 7 years old in my council, and this applies to everyone, in a couple , single et etc

debrag

A friend of mine had to have her parents write a letter saying she could no loner live with them. She was 18 pregnant and there was her parents & her nan in a 3 bed house. She was given a 1 bed private flat with steps leading up to the front door was there till the child was 3 and only moved to a 2 bed this past week.

Kids don't always get an 'education' from parents, kids see & do as their parents do, they will never work, have kids young and try to play the benefit system. This is different for different backgrounds. Then I suppose rich kids need not work coz they have money to fall back on.

Maybe we should have a survey done on how many kids go on to higher education who's parents never worked a day in their lifes & could.

hazyjo

For the life of me, I can't understand how someone would have a kid just to get a house/a bigger house.

Do people really just become single mothers to get a council house and give up their job? You have a kid for life and they cost a bloody fortune, take up most of your time, kill your social life, probably don't make it easy meeting someone...

Why on earth would someone rather give up a job (where they at least get to socialise with other people, get out of the house, and earn a bit of money) just to get a council house and sit at home with a baby/child - probably in a flat or house where you wouldn't actually choose to live.

Rather them than me, I can tell you that much! I can't think of anything worse! Not the life I'd choose.

Jx