Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Often people cannot get a low apid job because they are overqualified and the employer knows they will leave as soon as something better comes along. I found this when I left Uni and wanted something to tide me over while I found the right job. I was happy to do any sort of work but everyone knew, including me, that I would be off ASAP. Also, it's better for the economy to have the people with the right skills being in the right job, especially if that job is higher paid and therefore garnishes higher taxes.

Possibly max 6 months to find the right job, them admit it is not going to happen and forced to take whatever is available or lose benefits.

abaxas

Cost effectiveness is a red herring.

Driving without insurance is cost effective for the motorist, but I still see it being compulsory.
Giving alcoholics free drink laced with poison is cost effective as it kills them off. But I don't see that happening.

It is more cost effective to kill all all the chavs in a mass genocide. I don't really fancy that idea too.

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

Difficult with children, but I understand the theory. Where you stand on social housing? My own view is that occupancy should be reviewed every 5 years to ensure that those who no longer need assistance can be moved on into the private rented sector (or buy a house if they so choose) and to ensure that those with family homes who no longer require them (ie. because kids have flown the nest) are moved to more approriate accomodation. I also feel that part of the review should involve looking at the tenant's circumstances to see why they need social housing and put in strategies to help them back to work (if possible).

I'm all for fixed long term tenancies that never end. Let them stay in social housing, but pay market rates for it.

ILW

abaxas wrote: »

It is more cost effective to kill all all the chavs in a mass genocide. I don't really fancy that idea too.

I do.......

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

No one???

hold on - Orpheo wants families kicked out of their homes

Right so lets take this a step further.

You are a landlord. Are you saying there should be no way landlords can evict tenants?

No, you are not. And no one is here pretending you want all families kicked out on the streets with kids living in cardboard boxes everytime you disagree with making the tenancy laws better for tenants in this country....which you have done in the past.

Though I tell you what, I'll just bombard you with these comments next time you suggest ANYTHING that may see a landlord evicting a tenant for any reason....even if that reason is they cannot afford rent.

ILW

I really would like this country to try to instill a more "take responsibility and stand on your own two feet" attitude. Probably too late now.

abaxas

ILW wrote: »

I really would like this country to try to instill a more "take responsibility and stand on your own two feet" attitude. Probably too late now.

Plenty time left as we descend into a 2nd rate nation.

Percy1983

The idea if SMI wasn't there people would get work quicker is very true.

Going back a year or so I was out of work and still had credit cards etc to pay, after 2 weeks I took a lower paid job to tide me over, now if the government started paying a good part of my bills at that point I would have probably held out longer rather than doing a job a didn't like all that much.

That is the only 2 weeks I have been unemployed since being 15.

As I say I don't want families kicked out the second things go wrong, but if after 12 months they can't find anyway to support themselves they should be moved into whatever the goveremtn says since they are footing the bill.

By all means I would agree social housing needs a shake up.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's more cost effective to pay one LHA payment across the entire country. However, it does not work that way, as people in Lincolnshire would be raking it in, while people in London don't have a pot to pee in.


This is the crux of my point. It's preferrencial treatment. Help I'm all for. I've said it over and over. But if we are going to start preferencial treatment on the basis of cost effectiveness....then apply it countrywide. There would be anarchy.

Can you give the Chewbacca a rest your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Percy1983

abaxas wrote: »

It is more cost effective to kill all all the chavs in a mass genocide. I don't really fancy that idea too.

You've got my vote.