43000 people forced to move because of benefit cap

adindas

Having watched from BBC panorama and reading from various news about various tricks of getting housing benefit. It seems that some people who are in housing benefit and living in central London might not be genuine. It might happen that they are actually renting their own, family, or relatives homes. So in addition to getting a free housing, paid by taxpayers they also get cash from renting.

It is a sick system and prone tp abuse. People who are on housing benefit could live in quite posh area in central London, while people who are paying for it can not afford it.

mj12_2

Generali wrote: »

I don't imagine that those who died for their country are substantial recipients of housing benefit!

and what of their spouses and other family??? In any case my main point was regarding the lifetime of work and tax only to live just above the bread line as your reward.

In my opinion if thats what society is offering me in exchange for my life... (ie that if im lucky I will get a pension of £2.50/week in 2050) then I believe i shall decline the offer and leave society be - in the expectation it does the same for me... which of course it won't so atm I am condemned (unless i make my own arrangements) to poverty in my later years.... Im happy to make my own arrangements but how about letting me keep some of my tax and NI if thats what i have to do???

Percy1983

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Except that away from right-wing dogma world landlords have costs to cover.

Don't forget the greed which needs feeding.

The end of the day a landlord should only be able to make a profit once the property is paid for, up until that point there profit is the fact they are gaining a free property.

I think these moves are spot on, why should those who don't work be able to afford things which those who do work can't?

As for abuse of the system, I know of people in my area who are renting to memebers of there family who are then claiming benefits, unfortunately I am having a hard time proving it as there ethnicity says family names don't follow the patterns the indiginous follow.

Saying that I remember a case where on child was being claimed for 3 times, the only reason it was picked up was the boy was asian with blue eyes, so how many times isn't it spotted.

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

The end of the day a landlord should only be able to make a profit once the property is paid for, up until that point there profit is the fact they are gaining a free property.

Utter rubbish.

Say an entreprenuer takes a loan out to start up a company - are you saying they're not allowed to make a profit until they've paid back the loan?

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

Say an entreprenuer takes a loan out to start up a company - are you saying they're not allowed to make a profit until they've paid back the loan?

Said entreprenuer has to work, landlords can sit back and just send a bill every month.

Ok maybe landlords can send a bill at minimum wage for the few hours work they do every year.

My point a business sells a service or item which they can keep, with a tennant pays the mortgage and the lanlord keeps the product.

How would you feel is a supermarket charged you for your shopping but then kept everything you just bought?

StevieJ

Percy1983 wrote: »

As for abuse of the system, I know of people in my area who are renting to memebers of there family who are then claiming benefits, unfortunately I am having a hard time proving it as there ethnicity says family names don't follow the patterns the indiginous follow.

.

I don't think that is illegal is it?

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

Said entreprenuer has to work, landlords can sit back and just send a bill every month.

Ok maybe landlords can send a bill at minimum wage for the few hours work they do every year.

I think you're seriously underestimating the work involved - not just whilst a tenant is in situ but acquiring the property in the first instance.

And its not like everyone investing in businesses is burning the midnight oil to get them moving - I can think of examples of individuals in my profession whom invest in a business venture, take a loan on which they claim the interest against their income as a tax deduction, but aren't actually involved in the business itself. You're an accountant, you must be aware of the proliferation of film partnerships for instance?

My point a business sells a service or item which they can keep, with a tennant pays the mortgage and the lanlord keeps the product.

How would you feel is a supermarket charged you for your shopping but then kept everything you just bought?

That is not the same thing at all - with a rental property you are paying for a service, which is the right to utilise the property as your home for a contractual period. With a supermarket you're purchasing goods themselves.

Percy1983

So providing a service is handing over a key and saying 'you can live here' and from that service landlords should make massive profits?

In that case when I buy a house I want a massive tax reduction as I supply a massive service too myself everyday by letting me live in my house.

My point is the profit from the landlord business is you get a house at the end of it and that should be your payment.

eg, I buy a house and rent it out with a 20 year mortgage, then for the following 20 years my balance sheet shows nil profit, but I then have an asset worth £120k (of course whatever it worth in 20 years), so I have gained £6000 a year which is more than a healthy profit for not much work.

ILW

BTL is a business like any other. You cannot legislate to say when it is allowed to make a profit (or loss).

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

The end of the day a landlord should only be able to make a profit once the property is paid for, up until that point there profit is the fact they are gaining a free property.

Just out of interest, would you apply this rule to anyone who sets up a business?

For example, I decide to become an electrician. I take out a loan for £20,000 to be repaid over the next 5 years and I use this to buy my van, tools, other equipment, advertising and a variety of stuff. Would you allow this person to make a profit, or would you expect them to pay off all of their loan before they are allowed to take a profit?

Or is this just another rule that would apply to landlords only, as you don't like them?