Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

because some people dont just care about themselves.

they see that this ruling is going to cause a lot of trouble for a lot of people that are living with diffivulties anyway.

no one at all would see this new rule as a bad thing, if everything was in place ( smaller properties available for thise that need them)

people who struggle on a dailly basis, are now having to worry if they can afford to pay the extra

not everyone is as fortunate as you, and security is all theyt have.
now for many, that will be taken too

Mazza has seemed to be concerned for herself, which is why I used the word "personally". I'm thinking about people who will be affected by the changes and I am happy that so many families with young children may now be able to bring them up with some degree of security.

You know very little as to whether I'm" fortunate" or not but, as you seem to think a mobility scooter is all someone with emphysema needs for their life to be better than yours, I feel that we may be using the word in quite different ways.

nannytone_2

mazza said very early on in thsi thread that she has already dpwnsized from a 3 bed to a 2 bed.

she was stating that she was concerned for others because of the lack of 1 bed properties in her area.

she is merely doing what everyone else says we should do, and looking ahead to the time when her 16 year old is ready to leave home

nannytone_2

my late mother in law had emphsemia, so i'm well aware of the effects it has on someones life.

yes families do need security and more social housing is desperately needed.

but how can the answer be to provide security for one portion of the population, but removing it from another portion?

the concern isnt for those able to provide for themselves at some point, but for those unable to help themselves now, or at any point in the future

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

my late mother in law had emphsemia, so i'm well aware of the effects it has on someones life.

yes families do need security and more social housing is desperately needed.

but how can the answer be to provide security for one portion of the population, but removing it from another portion?

the concern isnt for those able to provide for themselves at some point, but for those unable to help themselves now, or at any point in the future

I remind of 2 things...

40% under-occupancy in Social Housing.

1.8 million on the waiting list for Social Housing.

nannytone_2

and the greater part of that 40% are either pensioners that arent affected or disabled people that giving up their only security is a complete no go.

so instead they will have to pay up and suffer as a result. as if they dont have enough suffering in their lives already!

surely the most reasonable response is to build more social housing, rather than make one vulnerable group suffer for the sake of another?

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

and the greater part of that 40% are either pensioners that arent affected or disabled people that giving up their only security is a complete no go.

so instead they will have to pay up and suffer as a result. as if they dont have enough suffering in their lives already!

surely the most reasonable response is to build more social housing, rather than make one vulnerable group suffer for the sake of another?

Why does there have to be just one solution? Surely demand is such that EVERY solution should be seen as viable?

nannytone_2

this situation has come about solely because of a shortage of affordable housing.
so isnt the obvious solution to provide more?

or is it easier to throw one section of society to the wall in order to help another section.

these families that need housing are choosing to have children ( and it is their right) but people who have no alternative and no choice, are being forced to pay for the choices of others.

thise that choose to expand their families
councils planning rules that state 2 bedroom properties only, when there is no shortage in my area

it doesnt matter. just force those least able to help themselves to pay doe OTHER peoples choices

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

this situation has come about solely because of a shortage of affordable housing.
so isnt the obvious solution to provide more?

or is it easier to throw one section of society to the wall in order to help another section.

these families that need housing are choosing to have children ( and it is their right) but people who have no alternative and no choice, are being forced to pay for the choices of others.

thise that choose to expand their families
councils planning rules that state 2 bedroom properties only, when there is no shortage in my area

it doesnt matter. just force those least able to help themselves to pay doe OTHER peoples choices

Anyone is family type Social Housing has CHOSEN to have children....... and that includes YOU!!!

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Anyone is family type Social Housing has CHOSEN to have children....... and that includes YOU!!!

i had children and i provided for them.

the fact that i was silly enough not to fleece my ex has meant that i now need help.
if i didnt have a disability that now precludes me from working, i would still be totally self sufficient.

but because others CHOSE to be reliant, whilst still doing what they want to do, rather than what they can afford to do, means that i need to pay for their choices.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i had children and i provided for them.

the fact that i was silly enough not to fleece my ex has meant that i now need help.
if i didnt have a disability that now precludes me from working, i would still be totally self sufficient.

but because others CHOSE to be reliant, whilst still doing what they want to do, rather than what they can afford to do, means that i need to pay for their choices.

So, for some strange reason, because you chose not to maximise the separation from your ex and the security that may have brought your children, you think the taxpayer should take up the slack? Yet you are critical of others who's circumstances may well have changed as a result of actions beyond their control?

The phrase to describe that is... Self interested hypocrisy!