Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
43000 people forced to move because of benefit cap
Comments
-
Maybe those in receipt of benefits (who are able) should be doing some community service for the privelage.... litter picking, cleaning grafiti there are plenty of jobs that need doing.
.
It's a nice idea in theory, but it would be bound to get abused once the champagne socialists in the council & government get involved - they'd just replace low paid jobs with free labour permanently.
I just feel really sorry for these people that will have to relocated from Central London on a meagre 25k for housing benefit -they'll have to go to horrible places like Surrey or Harpenden.0 -
heathcote123 wrote: »It's a nice idea in theory, but it would be bound to get abused once the champagne socialists in the council & government get involved - they'd just replace low paid jobs with free labour permanently.
I just feel really sorry for these people that will have to relocated from Central London on a meagre 25k for housing benefit -they'll have to go to horrible places like Surrey or Harpenden.
On rightmove there are more 3 bed properties under £1250 in London than there are in Surrey.
Working people also claim LHA.0 -
In other countries such as in ASIA (e.g. China, India, Indonesia, etc) people are discouraged to have more children. It solves demographic problem to some extents.
In this tiny isle people are encouraged to have children as there are the tax payers paying for them...
I think the ground rule here is that people need to be discouraged to have more children if they could not effort it. It is not fair for the children either as they will not get a good care, a good education, etc which is a disadvantage for them when they grow up ...I think Horse is clouding some good points with vitriol.
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.3K Spending & Discounts
- 240.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 253.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards