Housing benefit reforms really this much of a problem?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

You've been struggling to explain why people shouldn't be allowed to take some responsibility for themselves back from the state. Rather than consider this you've descended to name calling and the extreme i.e. if someone doesn't agree with you they either want people thrown on the street or think the crippled are to be blamed for their circumstances.

Most people are the result of their choices. Take a look in the mirror and have a think about the impact of your own chaotic choices vs those of 'the man'. Moaning about minutiae such as SMI and other people's luck is pathetic when you're a walking example of the point being made.

However, keep avoiding the question as to why you think people are unable to take more responsibility for themselves because there's an Internet point on offer - LM said 100% and I said most.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

It's taken decades to get into this situation. In a large democracy it'll take years to resolve. A little like weight loss - people take 10 years to put on 5 stone and declare the diet a failure when they haven't lost the weight by their next holiday.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

It's taken decades to get into this situation. In a large democracy it'll take years to resolve. A little like weight loss - people take 10 years to put on 5 stone and declare the diet a failure when they haven't lost the weight by their next holiday.

Another comparison may be life support. You know what would cure them but can't or won't arrange for it to be more widely available.

Rotor

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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***

You've certainly read that statement in a different way to me.

I saw it as saying people should not receive EXTRA benefits in order to correct mistakes they made when spending the original benefit payment.

The "100% of their own making" referring not to the fact they are on benefits, but the fact they !!!!sed it up the wall rather than spending it on rent.

dryhat

These BTL landlords like to portray themselves as some sort of captains of industry with sharp business skills and an eye for investment etc, when in reality the vast majority of them are just overleveraged chancers reliant on government welfare and low interest rates to keep them afloat.

Most of them couldn't run a bath nevermind a business.

CLAPTON

dryhat wrote: »

These BTL landlords like to portray themselves as some sort of captains of industry with sharp business skills and an eye for investment etc, when in reality the vast majority of them are just overleveraged chancers reliant on government welfare and low interest rates to keep them afloat.

Most of them couldn't run a bath nevermind a business.

they do rather well out of it though, don't they?

wotsthat

dryhat wrote: »

These BTL landlords like to portray themselves as some sort of captains of industry with sharp business skills and an eye for investment etc, when in reality the vast majority of them are just overleveraged chancers reliant on government welfare and low interest rates to keep them afloat.

..and yet when I suggest this welfare is reduced I'm accused of wanting people thrown on the street. LM suggested that people who spend their free money intended for rent on other things are undeserving of sympathy - Graham called him a !!!!.

Graham's not the brightest but when he's suggesting 'leftie' solutions like paying ever increasing amounts of HB or mass building for welfare claimants and railing against personal responsibility you know it's time to do something.

Loughton_Monkey

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

I shop in France/Spain/Italy for my gin. I don't live in a gated community. I tend to be grumpy even when I haven't had a bad day. Having been born into the "underclass" I can mix very well with them. But to deal with my point:

You are assessed for benefits. You live in a house costing £750 a week in rent. The government pays you £750 in Housing Benefit. You choose not to pay the council or HA or landlord it's rent. Tell me why this is not a problem 100% your own making. Tell me why the taxpayer should be involved in giving you extra money to pay arrears.

Loughton_Monkey

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.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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***

Just to point out, Graham, you quoted my post and then went on to answer a completely different argument. Had you had too much G&T?

I did look for other nearby posts that may have been advocating removing the entire benefits system, or assigning blame for the death of a spouse and linking it to non payment of rent, but couldn't find any.

If these symptoms of misunderstanding the English Language and rational argument persist, I genuinely advise you to see a doctor.... unless you simply want to compound these malicious theories that you are, indeed, muddled.

ukcarper

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I shop in France/Spain/Italy for my gin. I don't live in a gated community. I tend to be grumpy even when I haven't had a bad day. Having been born into the "underclass" I can mix very well with them. But to deal with my point:

You are assessed for benefits. You live in a house costing £750 a week in rent. The government pays you £750 in Housing Benefit. You choose not to pay the council or HA or landlord it's rent. Tell me why this is not a problem 100% your own making. Tell me why the taxpayer should be involved in giving you extra money to pay arrears.

I agree but one way or another we pick up the tab so might as well pay £750 straight to landlord