43000 people forced to move because of benefit cap

rickbonar

ukcarper wrote: »

If you think cases like those are typical I think you better stop reading the mail

I never claimed that they were typical cases and they may be extreme cases of how the system doesn't work properly but I believe to a lesser extent anyone paying over £400 per week in housing benefit that it's too much.

if you think that it's OK that government and taxpayers should pay (and I will make absolutely clear don't blame the tenants in 95% of the time but the landlords)

Perhaps you ought to start reading the Mail yourself.

ukcarper

rickbonar wrote: »

I never claimed that they were typical cases and they may be extreme cases of how the system doesn't work properly but I believe to a lesser extent anyone paying over £400 per week in housing benefit that it's too much.

if you think that it's OK that government and taxpayers should pay (and I will make absolutely clear don't blame the tenants in 95% of the time but the landlords)

Perhaps you ought to start reading the Mail yourself.

How would you solve the problem for low paid workers in London? What’s really needed is more social housing but I can’t see that happening.

rickbonar

I would solve the problem by capping rents ...... like they used to up until the 1980s, there a was fair rents board.

I agree there is a problem with people on low pay and the rents it seems this is where the problem is ... housing benefit would pay virtually any rent at one time... so you could earn take home of £150 a week and your landlord could charge a rent of whatever he wants say £250 a week now as it stands the worker will get back from the housing benefit office £165.

leaving him with £65 to live on. By the time he's paid his transport into work he is worse off than being on jobseekers and that's the real reason why many people don't bother working.

The landlord on the other hand his "work" is collecting his rent.

ukcarper

rickbonar wrote: »

I would solve the problem by capping rents ...... like they used to up until the 1980s, there a was fair rents board.

I agree there is a problem with people on low pay and the rents it seems this is where the problem is ... housing benefit would pay virtually any rent at one time... so you could earn take home of £150 a week and your landlord could charge a rent of whatever he wants say £250 a week now as it stands the worker will get back from the housing benefit office £165.

leaving him with £65 to live on. By the time he's paid his transport into work he is worse off than being on jobseekers and that's the real reason why many people don't bother working.

The landlord on the other hand his "work" is collecting his rent.

I’m not sure it is as simple as that there are plenty of people who will rent the properties before they become low enough for low paid workers. I only know 2 landlords and they both manage to rent their properties for more than the LHA rate if fact one is getting over £200 a month more.

Perhaps firms should pay more If the only way employees can afford to work for a firm is have their rent subsidised by the tax payer the tax payer is in fact subsidising the firm. Is it right that you pay the same for a Macdonald’s in central London as you do everywhere else.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

There's two ways to get ahead in life, be extremely rich and feed off those in the middle or be poor and be fed by those in middle. We live in a system designed to ensure those of us in the middle strive to be wealthy but will never actually achieve it and so continued to ensure the rich and poor are paid for.

As someone who pays in excess of £30,000 in income and VAT each year it's very frustrating to see money handed out in the manner it is. Yes there are those who genuinely need it but there is excessive over payment to those who don't need it as well.

My parent's neighbour has a daughter who got pregnant to avoid work and claim benefits (she's happy to admit this) and is now having her second child as she doesn't want to live in a flat. One of this girl's friends moved in to a flat and was given £250 to decorate it, 2 months later she was moved as the flat the government had just paid to be decorated was being demolished!

My parents work hard to live in a 3 bedroom house and pay their bills, someone else in the street gets their house for practically free and of course without any council tax. If you saw them in their day to day activities you would wonder just why they aren't working like the rest of us. But when evaluation day comes, all those pains start coming back and all of a sudden someone who rides their bike daily now can't even walk!

I fail to see why I should work my life away to pay for others to get a very decent standard of living at an extremely low cost.

rickbonar

To ucarper

If a landlord can get the money from someone who isn’t claiming housing benefit then fair enough. No problem if what you’re saying is correct.


The government has capped how much housing benefit can be paid per week to £400 per week. As you will see from my previous web links they pay well over this for some people – perhaps there is some special exemption for asylum seekers that they haven’t told us.

£400 a week
That's quite a lot of money - if someone can't find somewhere to rent for less then I think there is something wrong.

It's a question of economics and as I said an earlier post the government foots the bill for this housing benefit and quite a few people in work are claiming this because they simply don't earn enough.

Let’s get the idea that housing benefit claimants are all not in work out of the way please.
Many people have to rent because they don’t earn enough to buy yet work full time and the rents are often as much as they earn. …
Hence why they claim housing benefit… they have to.

Truth is they could give up work and relocate to somewhere up north and be fully unemployed and cost the taxpayer a lot less….

The people that are benefiting from housing benefit, if you pardon the pun are the landlords.

The housing benefits are paying their mortgages and making them rich.

To ludovico

There are a lot people that are doing what your parent’s neighbour daughter is doing and from her point view she is doing what she feels is to her best advantage and it is within the law to do this – unfortunately.

It is behaviour not unlike the landlords or the asylum seekers in fact.

I personally think cheap foreign labour has furnished all of this and in the long term there is quite a sting in the tail and yet the governments are still making the same old mistakes as they were back in the 1950s/60s/70/80s etc.

The sting in the tail is that housing disappears to accommodate these “refugees” they in time become accustomed to the expectations of native british people and see this as “their right”, the offspring where the true problems manifest where they don’t feel they belong anywhere and end in a kind of subculture of drug peddling taking and gangsta rap identity or Islam or something like that in turn native Britons are squeezed out and form their own subculture of council accommodation and benefit dependency. Everyone is mixed together in a cockeyed government idealistic fantasy cocktail of multiculturalism and diversity spawning sexual deviancy and crime.

I think the case the guesthouse taken to court summed up this sick madness for me earlier this year.
And still they allow more asylum seekers in every day. See the line about the border agency in the rhyme below.

I cross ocean poor and broke
Take bus, see employment folk.
Border agents they catch me, all they gave me was cup of tea.
I come for visit, get treated regal,
So I stay, who cares I illegal?

Nice man treats me good in there.
Say I need to see welfare.
Welfare say, "You come no more, we send cash right to your door."
benefit cheques - they make you wealthy! NHS - it keep you healthy!
By and by, I got plenty money.
Thanks to you, British dummy!

ukcarper

rickbonar wrote: »

To ucarper

If a landlord can get the money from someone who isn’t claiming housing benefit then fair enough. No problem if what you’re saying is correct.


The government has capped how much housing benefit can be paid per week to £400 per week. As you will see from my previous web links they pay well over this for some people – perhaps there is some special exemption for asylum seekers that they haven’t told us.

£400 a week
That's quite a lot of money - if someone can't find somewhere to rent for less then I think there is something wrong.

It's a question of economics and as I said an earlier post the government foots the bill for this housing benefit and quite a few people in work are claiming this because they simply don't earn enough.

Let’s get the idea that housing benefit claimants are all not in work out of the way please.
Many people have to rent because they don’t earn enough to buy yet work full time and the rents are often as much as they earn. …
Hence why they claim housing benefit… they have to.

Truth is they could give up work and relocate to somewhere up north and be fully unemployed and cost the taxpayer a lot less….

The people that are benefiting from housing benefit, if you pardon the pun are the landlords.

The housing benefits are paying their mortgages and making them rich.

To ludovico

There are a lot people that are doing what your parent’s neighbour daughter is doing and from her point view she is doing what she feels is to her best advantage and it is within the law to do this – unfortunately.

It is behaviour not unlike the landlords or the asylum seekers in fact.

I personally think cheap foreign labour has furnished all of this and in the long term there is quite a sting in the tail and yet the governments are still making the same old mistakes as they were back in the 1950s/60s/70/80s etc.

The sting in the tail is that housing disappears to accommodate these “refugees” they in time become accustomed to the expectations of native british people and see this as “their right”, the offspring where the true problems manifest where they don’t feel they belong anywhere and end in a kind of subculture of drug peddling taking and gangsta rap identity or Islam or something like that in turn native Britons are squeezed out and form their own subculture of council accommodation and benefit dependency. Everyone is mixed together in a cockeyed government idealistic fantasy cocktail of multiculturalism and diversity spawning sexual deviancy and crime.

I think the case the guesthouse taken to court summed up this sick madness for me earlier this year.
And still they allow more asylum seekers in every day. See the line about the border agency in the rhyme below.

I cross ocean poor and broke
Take bus, see employment folk.
Border agents they catch me, all they gave me was cup of tea.
I come for visit, get treated regal,
So I stay, who cares I illegal?

Nice man treats me good in there.
Say I need to see welfare.
Welfare say, "You come no more, we send cash right to your door."
benefit cheques - they make you wealthy! NHS - it keep you healthy!
By and by, I got plenty money.
Thanks to you, British dummy!

I think you are starting to show your true colours.

rickbonar

What do you mean, starting?

adindas

£400/pw is still a lot. reasonable number of people in GB who contribute to the system still earn less than that.

People do the choice to decide how many children they have. The system has people to have as many children they want and let the taxpayers pay for it.

It is a sick system, need a radical change ...

rickbonar wrote: »

They were to stories in the Mail and The Sun yes ...

They were links to people all "refugees" and dubious asylum seekers on many times the capped rate of £400 a week housing benefit.

here's another one for you all to peruse

Do notice btw what the landlord has to say.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350173/Refugee-1-2m-taxpayer-funded-mansion-charged-benefit-fraud.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1074429/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN--170-000-spent-Afghan-single-mother--A-story-sums-howling-insanity-modern-Britain.html

atush

I think Horse is clouding some good points with vitriol.

In addition, most workers tend to plan the size of their family around their earnings.

This is quite true, and when we had twins instead of just baby no2 it set us back years financially, and will set us back hugely in trying to budget for twins starting Uni in 2012.

It may be impractical to restrict those who already have children to a 2 bed flat, but never-ending children shouldn't be allowed either- esp women who keep adding additional children with new absent fathers. They need to restrict future growth of families somehow, and making it a law that any new children born won't be taken into acct in benefits should help.

When the US changed benefits in the 90's under Clinton, they did restrict new payments for any future children born to welfare mothers, and all mothers were given free training to get back into work. And it did reduce the welfare bill, and got more single mothers back to work than before. They knew they couldn't have further children and get the same so they stopping having more.