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.
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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Housing benefit reforms really this much of a problem?
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »If paying HB directly (or that bit of UC that was HB) directly to Landlords saves money overall then I fail to see what the problem is.
Simply paying out UC to some recipient who then p*ss it up the wall and then still need bailing out (which they will), together with the administration costs and potential re-homing issues, doesn't seem a good use of money IMO.
As they need some form of HB it suggests even the good ones are on tight budgets. Stuff happens and rent will be missed.
In other words, you are repeating my sentiments in the post above.Loughton_Monkey wrote: »Ultimately, of course, being a cynic, I am convinced that after a few years, things will settle down, and UC will become an accepted "income" for unemployed, single parents, lower paid etc. until such time as the 'wets' will notice that the poorest of these are not paying their rent [because the money is going on Bingo or Wonga loan interest], and they will come up with the "magic" idea of paying "Housing Benefit" on top for qualifying people.
Mark my words. UC is the most dangerous thing that Cameron has ever done. Just give it a couple of years, and it will become a case of:
"Benefits? Oh yes. You go to the benefits office, and they look up a complicated chart after finding out your status, number of kids, rent etc... and you get money. In your case, you'll get about £480 a week...." Over time, it will get simplified to become something like £100 a week, plus £150 a week per adult (or £250 for single parent), and £80 per child.....
A lot of these claimants will continue to mismanage money, not pay their rent and generally become a pain in the a*rse. The general consensus will be that this "income" is there to pay for food, entertainment, clothes etc. and your council house rent. Surely it's unfair for me because I don't pay subsidised rent. I pay market rent!
Then we'll vote in a Red Ed Government who will come up with the "bright idea" of paying something called "Housing Benefit" on top to a good proportion of the claimants....
Just like the "bright idea" of paying poor pensioners a "heating allowance" if there were more than 5 days in a row of 0° weather (or whatever). A few years in and what happens? Every Tom !!!!!! and Harriet over 60 gets the damned payment whatever the mildness of the winter. Our government has poor memories.0 -
Why buy into the idea that the government should (or are able to) solve everyone's problems?
That's not really a solution. That's just not dealing with the problems.
All you are saying is do nothing and let people live on the streets etc.
A solution is looking at the problem and dealing with it.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »That's not really a solution. That's just not dealing with the problems.
All you are saying is do nothing and let people live on the streets etc.
A solution is looking at the problem and dealing with it.
It is not acknowledging one of the principal underlying problems either."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »That's not really a solution. That's just not dealing with the problems.
All you are saying is do nothing and let people live on the streets etc.
A solution is looking at the problem and dealing with it.
It is not the purpose of government, or the taxpayer, to "deal with" problems which are 100% of people's own making.
If Fred Wiggins spends rather too much on booze one night, and comes home throwing his boots into the television - totally destroying an object worth £500 - do we get the government to buy him a new one?
No!
If Billy Buggins spends rather too much on booze most nights, and doesn't pay his rent, despite the fact that his benefits package includes 100% of the rental cost, and after his statutory warnings, time to pay, etc. - do we get the government to pay his rent for him? And his arrears?
No!
The only result of doing that is that many others will learn what happens and do the same.
There is no better way to learn than to see what happens to others and avoid making the same mistakes.0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »It is not the purpose of government, or the taxpayer, to "deal with" problems which are 100% of people's own making.
If Fred Wiggins spends rather too much on booze one night, and comes home throwing his boots into the television - totally destroying an object worth £500 - do we get the government to buy him a new one?
No!
If Billy Buggins spends rather too much on booze most nights, and doesn't pay his rent, despite the fact that his benefits package includes 100% of the rental cost, and after his statutory warnings, time to pay, etc. - do we get the government to pay his rent for him? And his arrears?
No!
The only result of doing that is that many others will learn what happens and do the same.
There is no better way to learn than to see what happens to others and avoid making the same mistakes.
Righty-O.
So we've gone from a simple ask to "provide a solution" to removing the entire benefits and welfare system.
Wonder if your thoughts would be different should you or close members of your family be not quite as comfortable financially.
Seems to me this response appears to be more for arguments sake rather than anything meaningful.
It's also interesting that you think people on welfare are using the system 100% due to their own making. Like to see you describe how the death of a parent in the family is a problem "entirely of the spouses own making".
Infact, I rather feel you are just a bit of a K***0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »That's not really a solution. That's just not dealing with the problems.
All you are saying is do nothing and let people live on the streets etc.
A solution is looking at the problem and dealing with it.
Paying ever greater amounts of money in housing benefit and/ or a mass building of council houses to house people for free aren't dealing with the problem either. (Where the problem is that free loaders and government collude to take money from those who have solved this problem for themselves).
We're back to where we started. I think these people should be given their balls back and be given the opportunity to find their own solutions. You don't think they're capable and that it's the government"s job to provide a solution to a problem which is of their own making.
I didn't say anything about throwing people onto the streets.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Infact, I rather feel you are just a bit of a K***
Funny how you spend so much time playing the victim, pity seeking and complaining about schoolyard behaviour yet this is presumably perfectly acceptable.0 -
Funny how you spend so much time playing the victim, pity seeking and complaining about schoolyard behaviour yet this is presumably perfectly acceptable.
It's not schoolyard behaviour though. It's a direct response to what I think of a poster at this moment in time after what they stated.
If you feel Loughton was right to suggest that people on welfare are there 100% through their own making then feel free to agree with him.
However, it was a pathetically stupid thing to state. What now? People with crippling disabilities, mental and physical are only on welfare due to their own making?
Give me a break... It's all just looking for attention and argument seeking. Unless he really does think this. Either way, my thoughts on the poster stand. At least I can make my assertion up based on exactly what he typed...not some made up slur. And don't cry me a river, I'm sure he can take it considering the waffle he dishes out.0 -
Paying ever greater amounts of money in housing benefit and/ or a mass building of council houses to house people for free aren't dealing with the problem either. (Where the problem is that free loaders and government collude to take money from those who have solved this problem for themselves).
We're back to where we started. I think these people should be given their balls back and be given the opportunity to find their own solutions. You don't think they're capable and that it's the government"s job to provide a solution to a problem which is of their own making.
I didn't say anything about throwing people onto the streets.
All very well but the problem isn't going to be removed. It will still be there next week, the week after and will continue way past my time on this planet.
Personally I would prefer to minimise the operational cost managing that problem. I would also like to minimise the actual cost of it too but I don' see any evidence of either being achieved."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »It is not the purpose of government, or
the taxpayer, to "deal with" problems which are 100% of people's own making.
What a bizarre statement.
Do you live on a nice gated development in Essex, shop online for your Gin and tonic so you don't have to mix with the "underclass"?.
I'm guessing you have had a really bad day and grumpy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards