Is this right?

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What is the matter with people?!

Some of them don't HAVE to move to tower blocks. They OWN other properties!!!!

I really do not get how some can back up such an insane system. But back it up they do. I simply cannot grasp it.

What on earth is wrong with just looking at peoples assets and finances, and then deciding whether they should actually use their own assets like the rest of us, instead of the states, and getting taxpayer money for the "inconvinience".

I do give up though. Some obviously cannot see the injustice, and thats that.

Do you always throw your toys out of the pram when other people aren't in 100% agreement with you? If so posting on Internet forums probably isn't good for your blood pressure.

chewmylegoff

...and also a bit pointless as if your not prepared to debate, and just have a tantrum when people say anything contrary to your view, then there doesn't seem to be much point in it. Maybe you should write a blog instead - you can then delete any comments you don't like.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Do you always throw your toys out of the pram when other people aren't in 100% agreement with you? If so posting on Internet forums probably isn't good for your blood pressure.

It's nothing to do with agreement.

It's all to do with people coming along, talking about a women with another property (maybe even properties) and stating "well why would they want to move to a tower block".

The issue that some council house occupants have other propertie(s) is being purposely ignored. These people would not have to move to a tower block. They have choices. They have other houses. They can choose to live in one of their other houses, instead of taking a house from the community far bigger than they need. I've asked if these people should be ignored, and have all but been told yes, they should.

So that's where the debate ends. How can I debate something, which was detailed in the OP, if the people in the debate wish to ignore the whole premise of the debate and ignore the circumstances being talked about?

The debate has boiled down to "thats what they signed up to". Fair enough. But there is little debate past that. Just harping off at one another.

I take it everyone is in agreement that Bob Crow should be treated the same, and should his house be demolished, he also should get far more than he actually needs with a cheque given to him by the taxpayer. He can afford far more. But he sits in a house much needed by other people. I take it people are perfectly ok with that and feel that is completely fair and therefore, should not be talked about. As obviously if you do, your simply jealous.

Surely, the purpose of a council home should be to give those in need a chance. We all pay into the pot. These people no longer need a chance. Those that do, fine, they stay, no ones saying any different. But those with other properties? Seriously? They should be given another new (very much in demand) house, with more bedrooms than they need, just because well.....so far we've had "you'd want security"...."its a home"...."your jealous"...."thats what they signed upto, good luck and all that".

You are a prime example of someone who isn't discussing, just trying to shut others up.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's nothing to do with agreement.

It's all to do with people coming along, talking about a women with another property (maybe even properties) and stating "well why would they want to move to a tower block".

The issue that some council house occupants have other propertie(s) is being purposely ignored. These people would not have to move to a tower block. They have choices. They have other houses. They can choose to live in one of their other houses, instead of taking a house from the community far bigger than they need. I've asked if these people should be ignored, and have all but been told yes, they should.

So that's where the debate ends. How can I debate something, which was detailed in the OP, if the people in the debate wish to ignore the whole premise of the debate and ignore the circumstances being talked about?

The debate has boiled down to "thats what they signed up to". Fair enough. But there is little debate past that. Just harping off at one another.

I take it everyone is in agreement that Bob Crow should be treated the same, and should his house be demolished, he also should get far more than he actually needs with a cheque given to him by the taxpayer. He can afford far more. But he sits in a house much needed by other people. I take it people are perfectly ok with that and feel that is completely fair and therefore, should not be talked about. As obviously if you do, your simply jealous.

Surely, the purpose of a council home should be to give those in need a chance. We all pay into the pot. These people no longer need a chance. Those that do, fine, they stay, no ones saying any different. But those with other properties? Seriously? They should be given another new (very much in demand) house, with more bedrooms than they need, just because well.....so far we've had "you'd want security"...."its a home"...."your jealous"...."thats what they signed upto, good luck and all that".

You are a prime example of someone who isn't discussing, just trying to shut others up.

You didn’t mention the other home in your original post and by your own admission you don’t know anything about her second property it could be a time-share.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You didn’t mention the other home in your original post and by your own admission you don’t know anything about her second property it could be a time-share.

Could be.

She could have more properties.

She could be massively in debt.

Other council tenants could have more properties.

Other council tenants may not.

Other council tenants might have millions in cash in the bank.

Others may not.

You are completely making my point here. A point I have bought up twice. What's wrong with simple checks to make sure the person still qualifies? It's not been answered yet. All that has been said, in all but words, is once someone has a council place, they are untouchable. Any slightly difficult question that has actually been answered is answered with "but you don't know"....

Theres another thread I've noticed about the same sort of thing on the housing board. It's gone the same way. Pure ignorance of any issues, argued with "do you have proof". The whole point of people stating checks should happen is to GAIN the proof. Ignored again "but do you have proof".

sjaypink

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Im so fussed because my tax is being wasted on paying them benefits.

Im not out socialising because im saving up a house deposit and emergency fund, we dont all get free houses you know.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

By the way you could be dead tomorrow.

Thankfully I'm stil here :A
I just don't understand why some young(ish) people have got nothing better to do than to moan on about wastes of taxpayers money - well, I do, but if you are to look at how taxes are spent you'll find far greater waste to target your frustration at first.
If I were younger, free-er and single-er I would hope to be spending my time doing something a bit more thrilling than spending all my time on the net being negative (doing otherwise doesn't have to cost anything).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What's wrong with simple checks to make sure the person still qualifies? .

Nothing.

And the Tories were talking about doing exactly that.

From memory the plan was that councils would be given the choice to charge new council tenants a higher rate, around 80% of open market rent, and be means tested every few years so that as circumstances changed, they could move to the open market and not have a subsidised house for life.

No idea whether it's been implemented yet, or when/if it will be.

But existing tenants on lifetime secure tenancies are pretty much untouchable, sadly, so fully implementing these changes will take decades.

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Could be.

She could have more properties.

She could be massively in debt.

Other council tenants could have more properties.

Other council tenants may not.

Other council tenants might have millions in cash in the bank.

Others may not.

You are completely making my point here. A point I have bought up twice. What's wrong with simple checks to make sure the person still qualifies? It's not been answered yet. All that has been said, in all but words, is once someone has a council place, they are untouchable. Any slightly difficult question that has actually been answered is answered with "but you don't know"....

Theres another thread I've noticed about the same sort of thing on the housing board. It's gone the same way. Pure ignorance of any issues, argued with "do you have proof". The whole point of people stating checks should happen is to GAIN the proof. Ignored again "but do you have proof".

I think in the future things will be changed far more in this direction.

We have spoke before about potential ways to balance what we nowadays want social housing to be, what is did once stand for, and to provide a valuable function in our communities. I could be done, and I think it will be in the not so distant future.

But as for your colleague, sorry, I know you're fed up of hearing it, but the fact is, she has a contract. As much as I think some tenants are underserving IMHO, I do not like the idea of the government of the time retracting a long term contract. If a trend is started there the same could apply to job contracts and all manner of other things.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Then why do you wish to remove that security?

I wish to remove the ruling to let layabouts get a free house for life because it is wrong.

I wish to remove the ruling to let people who live in council houses stay their for life even if they are working and are capable of saving up a deposit for a house of their own, this then frees up the house and allows a new tenant to save up a house deposit easier than if they were private renting.

You get the security you need when you buy your own home.

Have you had a chance to watch that tv program i mentioned, it will clear things up for you, it will show you that i am not a liar and you may also realise that you are a bit naive.

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

Thankfully I'm stil here :A
I just don't understand why some young(ish) people have got nothing better to do than to moan on about wastes of taxpayers money - well, I do, but if you are to look at how taxes are spent you'll find far greater waste to target your frustration at first.
If I were younger, free-er and single-er I would hope to be spending my time doing something a bit more thrilling than spending all my time on the net being negative (doing otherwise doesn't have to cost anything).

That was a very weak attempt at making me look like a loser, why dont you just come out and say it, i think you are a boring loser lad, see its quicker and easier.

I think all young people should shut up about the amount of money this country wastes and go and play with their ipad, is that what you are saying.