Please sign This petition Ian Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week.

seven-day-weekend

Pollycat wrote: »

I think, from her posts, that Nannytone is determined not to see any possibilities regarding potential lodgers.

Not singling out Nannytone here, but I think much of the problem of the present welfare system appears to be that people on long-term Benefits have been nannied (no pun intended!) by the State for so long that their minds have become inflexible and anything that happens that means a change to their lifestyle throws them into a panic. Look at all the fuss that was kicked up when it was decided that Benefits might be paid monthly, as wages are. End of world scenario for many.

Many long-term Benefit claimants seem to think that their money drops out of the sky and I have even seen someone on here, claiming full Housing Benefit, claim that their house was 'rent free', i.e, there was no rent to be paid on it :eek:.

So I think a lot of problems with the reduction in Housing Benefit is that people are so set in their ways that they can only see that they have less money, they cannot see a Plan B, never mind actually putting that plan into action,. They have been so cushioned that it is beyond them to see outside the box.

That's mho anyway.

Pollycat

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We've done all of that in the past. Some people on here think those of us who are suggesting a lodger etc have never had to struggle. That's the whole point, we HAVE struggled and have found ways to deal with it, some of which we are suggesting here and being slated for daring to suggest something that may mean people have to change their lifestyle a little.

(We had an excellent little book called '101 things to do with lentils', and used it too! )

I agree.

I may be comfortably retired now but I did have at least 3 periods (one of a year plus) where my ex-husband was out of work - and nobody paid our rent or council tax for us.

Because we had - not debts exactly - commitments (our own fault, I admit) we had to really tighten our belts.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Not singling out Nannytoone here, but I think much of the problem of the present welfare system appears to be that people on long-term Benefits have been nannied (no pun intended!) by the State for so long that their minds have become inflexible and anything that happens that means a change to their lifestyle throws them into a panic. Look at all the fuss that was kicked up when it was decided that Benefits might be paid monthly, as wages are. End of world scenario for many.

Many long-term Benefit claimants seem to think that their money drops out of the sky and I have even seen someone on here, claiming full Housing Benefit, claim that their house was 'rent free', i.e, there was no rent to be paid on it :eek:.

So I think a lot of problems with the reduction in Housing Benefit is that people are so set in their ways that they can only see that they have less money, they cannot see a Plan B, never mind actually putting that plan into action,. They have been so cushioned that it is beyond them to see outside the box.

That's mho anyway.

And my opinion too, SDW.

I'm not saying that I think this Govt have got the solution right, I think it's a bit cack-handed but the point is something needs to be done (in fact something has needed to be done years ago) about benefits.

Dunroamin

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Not singling out Nannytoone here, but I think much of the problem of the present welfare system appears to be that people on long-term Benefits have been nannied (no pun intended!) by the State for so long that their minds have become inflexible and anything that happens that means a change to their lifestyle throws them into a panic. Look at all the fuss that was kicked up when it was decided that Benefits might be paid monthly, as wages are. End of world scenario for many.

Many long-term Benefit claimants seem to think that their money drops out of the sky and I have even seen someone on here, claiming full Housing Benefit, claim that their house was 'rent free', i.e, there was no rent to be paid on it :eek:.

So I think a lot of problems with the reduction in Housing Benefit is that people are so set in their ways that they can only see that they have less money, they cannot see a Plan B, never mind actually putting that plan into action,. They have been so cushioned that it is beyond them to see outside the box.

That's mho anyway.

Don't forget the people who claim LHA/HB/CTB who don't count this as part of their income as they don't actually get it in their hands.

seven-day-weekend

That's it exactly, Pollycat. Something has got to be done about Benefits. This Government are attempting to do something. They may not have got it exactly right, but things could not continue as they were.

FWIW, I personally think fit and healthy Pensioners should be included in the reduction of HB, and especially encouraged to downsize.

bigboybrother

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

That's it exactly, Pollycat. Something has got to be done about Benefits. This Government are attempting to do something. They may not have got it exactly right, but things could not continue as they were.

FWIW, I personally think fit and healthy Pensioners should be included in the reduction of HB, and especially encouraged to downsize.

Why are we only talking about those on benefits having to downsize? Surely everyone that is living in a house that is far too big for their needs should be forced to downsize whether they rent or own it outright.

There can be no justification on the basis that they don't claim benefits to entitle anyone to occupy a property that is oversized. All that is happening is to make the divide between the renters on benefit and the outright owners that much bigger. Them and us!

What about the owners that have a mortgage that is paid in part by the government? Shouldn't they be forced to downsize and/or live in a cheaper property?

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

We're not discussing homeless people, we're discussing care leavers. Even if we were, if there's a possibility of being eventually allocated a whole (oversized) flat, there's not really a great incentive to make a go of things in a houseshare, is there?

Social workers could just as well help young people in this situation to find shared accommodation and to emphasise the flexibility (and cheapness) that are the benefits of living like this. Particularly as you seem to thing that young people in care take notice of what their social workers recommend.

Well I don't know about where you live. The process here is. Someone comes out of care, they automatically go on the homeless list if nothing is found for them in the meantime. So to speak of one is to speak of the other. Then they usually go into a homeless unit (shared scatter flats) until a property becomes available.

Sorry, but as private lets are more expensive in rent, why would social workers encourage these youngsters to do that? It's worked out well for the 2 who I know who've come out of care, but then they had a good support worker Please don't start with this "you seem to think" bull. I'm saying it from experience. Kids will listen to their support workers/social workers if they've got a good rapport with them, and it's to their benefit. They often love the thought of getting their first property. The councils won't entertain long term flat shares, although it's probably something they could look at. Can you imagine the uproar if they paired someone up with someone less than desirable?

And yes, while I agree that something had to be done about the benefits bill, I don't think this is the way to go about it. Not until the properties are available.

Now I'm not attacking anyone in particular here, but for those of you who are over pension age, how would you feel if you had to lose some of your hard done by cash. How would you feel if you were already living on the breadline at £56/week and to be told you now had to pay another bill that you can't afford from it. I don't believe many of you would sit and take it without complaining or campaigning. Do you think I wouldn't be arguing just as hard if it was pensions that were being cut?

seven-day-weekend

bigboybrother wrote: »

Why are we only talking about those on benefits having to downsize? Surely everyone that is living in a house that is far too big for their needs should be forced to downsize whether they rent or own it outright.

There can be no justification on the basis that they don't claim benefits to entitle anyone to occupy a property that is oversized. All that is happening is to make the divide between the renters on benefit and the outright owners that much bigger. Them and us!

What about the owners that have a mortgage that is paid in part by the government? Shouldn't they be forced to downsize and/or live in a cheaper property?

I think people in social housing who are on Housing Benefit should downsize if possible because I see no reason why the Government should subsidise a spare room. I am also a believer in downsizing to an appropriate size place so that this scarce public resource can be used to its best effectiveness.

Privately renting is different, imho, it is not a public resource and is already limited by the amount of LHA that someone can claim. If people pay the rent themselves, then imho they can have whatever size place they like.

Owner-occupation again is different, if people pay for their own home out of their own money, then again they can have as large a place as they like.

People who claim Mortgage Relief only get part of the interest paid, they still have to find the rest of the mortgage payment themselves and if they can't afford it, they WILL have to downsize, or rent.

I would like to say however, that I own my house outright and have two spare bedrooms. This is because myself and my husband paid our mortgage for the required length of time out of our own money, we got no help from anyone and it did not fall out of the sky. Therefore I do not see why we should have to have a smaller place as we have paid for this one ourselves.

Pollycat

bigboybrother wrote: »

Why are we only talking about those on benefits having to downsize? Surely everyone that is living in a house that is far too big for their needs should be forced to downsize whether they rent or own it outright.

There can be no justification on the basis that they don't claim benefits to entitle anyone to occupy a property that is oversized. All that is happening is to make the divide between the renters on benefit and the outright owners that much bigger. Them and us!

What about the owners that have a mortgage that is paid in part by the government? Shouldn't they be forced to downsize and/or live in a cheaper property?

Don't be ridiculous! :rotfl:

If you live without any state benefits, you can do as you please.

Are you seriously suggesting that people who have worked hard and paid a mortgage and provided for their own future should be forced to sell their house because they have a spare bedroom?

Just who do you think is going to buy all these 3,4,5 bedroomed houses?
Wow! Just imagine the chaos that would cause to the housing market.
Or are you suggesting that the Govt should just appropriate people's houses?

Just wonderin....do you live in a house that's too big for you?
And if you do, do you own it outright?

Dunroamin

mazza111 wrote: »

Well I don't know about where you live. The process here is. Someone comes out of care, they automatically go on the homeless list if nothing is found for them in the meantime. So to speak of one is to speak of the other. Then they usually go into a homeless unit (shared scatter flats) until a property becomes available.

Sorry, but as private lets are more expensive in rent, why would social workers encourage these youngsters to do that? It's worked out well for the 2 who I know who've come out of care, but then they had a good support worker Please don't start with this "you seem to think" bull. I'm saying it from experience. Kids will listen to their support workers/social workers if they've got a good rapport with them, and it's to their benefit. They often love the thought of getting their first property. The councils won't entertain long term flat shares, although it's probably something they could look at. Can you imagine the uproar if they paired someone up with someone less than desirable?

And yes, while I agree that something had to be done about the benefits bill, I don't think this is the way to go about it. Not until the properties are available.

Now I'm not attacking anyone in particular here, but for those of you who are over pension age, how would you feel if you had to lose some of your hard done by cash. How would you feel if you were already living on the breadline at £56/week and to be told you now had to pay another bill that you can't afford from it. I don't believe many of you would sit and take it without complaining or campaigning. Do you think I wouldn't be arguing just as hard if it was pensions that were being cut?

I don't think that anybody automatically goes on the housing list, somebody (the person themselves or their social worker must make an application.) must make an application.

Something seems to me to be very wrong if young people are placed in SH flats which are cheaper for the governement, despite the fact that the young people themselves can't actually afford to live there. I can't see how you can argue that this is a good policy.

Re listening to social workers - I agree that they listen if it's for their benefit, in other words, if they're saying what they want to hear! I don't think that this should be the role of the social worker and, if they actually do this in your area, I think that's totally irresponsible.

Those of us who are pensioners have made it very clear that we think that pensioners should have been included in the new arrangements, particualrly those who aren't very elderly and frail. And, because you've mentioned £56 again, it is only those healthy young people who have to live on this amount and they're the people who really shoudn't be getting too comfortable on benefits or it really will become a long term existence.

seven-day-weekend

Agree with Dunroamin's post 240 absolutely. Young people (Especially those coming out of care) should be helped and encouraged to become independent citizens, not sitting around waiting for a flat and/or benefits to fall into their laps. Is this all the expectations they are going to be given? It SHOULD be a bit tough for them so they are motivated to try for better things, and they SHOULD be expected to share accommodation, because that is what other young people have to do and it is not right to have fewer aspirations for certain other young people.

'When they are young give them roots, when they are grown give them wings' - it seems to me that consigning them to a life on Benefits in a flat they can't afford is not giving them wings, it is rooting them even further so that they will never know how to fly.

I also agree with her other point, and will re-iterate again, we have said that we think younger and fit and healthy pensioners should be included in the proposals.