Homeless Dept (Enfield) Video

booksurr

ABrass wrote: »

As such it's reasonable to accept it isn't simple, which in turn implies that you might be missing something.

how about missing a time limit

unemployment benefit drops after 6 months, why should HB continue forever resulting in those who won't work through choice being able to live in housing that the average working person could never afford.

Why shouldn't central London exclude the lower class, with effort comes reward, it should not be through sloth that you get a London penthouse. After all the middle class is excluded from lots of gated communities occupied by the upper class. Social engineering should work in both directions ....

SuzieSue

ABrass wrote: »

I do love lines like this. It implies that no-one will ever lose their job, become injured or disabled, seperate from a partner through death or choice and a million other things that make up the rich tapestry of human existence.

.

That is exactly what insurance is for, not benefits.


Benefits are for people who are born disabled or became disabled before they left full time education and their disability prevents them from working.

kaya

gazter wrote: »

£143,000 one family alone received in one year for one house in housing benefit.

No, thats incorrect, £143,000 is what one greedy landlord recieved in one year for one of his homes all paid for by the taxpayer, the family recieved a roof over their head for that year, had the landlord only charged £1200 rent for that year the family would have been no better or worse off that they are now but the taxpayer would have saved £131,000 and the family would still just have got a roof over their head. i wonder how many private landlords benefitting from all this ludicrous rent are politicians ?

booksurr

kaya wrote: »

No, thats incorrect, £143,000 is what one greedy landlord recieved in one year for one of his homes all paid for by the taxpayer,

poor analogy
why is the world full of people who get (/expect to be) paid more than national minimum wage?
answer: because they are in a position to demand higher wages as part of selling their skills into a workplace
no different to a LL being able to charge a market related rent for a property , basic economics of supply and demand

why such property is then funded by the taxpayer is a different question!

BitterAndTwisted

booksurr wrote: »

how about missing a time limit

unemployment benefit drops after 6 months, why should HB continue forever resulting in those who won't work through choice being able to live in housing that the average working person could never afford.

There is no time-limit on jobseekers allowance! As long as the applicant fulfills the criteria for claiming it, they continue to receive it.

The overwhelming majority of those claiming HB/LHA are in work.

If there was no HB/LHA most of the capital's office-cleaners, bus-drivers, cooks, waiters, shop-assistants, refuse operatives etcetera would be forced to live in places like Essex or Lincolnshire and wouldn't be able to take jobs in the city. Think about the consequences of what you appear to be wishing for. Without the aforesaid employees think about what it would be like to live here.

The problem isn't necessarily the easy availability of benefits, it's low pay.

princeofpounds

Think about the consequences of what you appear to be wishing for. Without the aforesaid employees think about what it would be like to live here.

This is always the difficulty with subsidy right? Of course people aren't going to stop eating lunch or cleaning their offices. You would probably find that one of the biggest side-effects would be rising wages.

It is basically an unsolveable problem however - if you take people off benefits when they work, you have high marginal rates of taxation which heavily discourage work-seeking, especially amongst the marginal labour community. But if you keep people on a level of benefits, then you end up subsidising their employers and their suppliers (landlords, supermarkets etc.).

[Deleted User]

Here we go again lol.

I am a benefit recipient and as such have been a carer of my now 18 year old son. I've kept him in school, backed up the school (tutoring and marking sometimes without sleep), endless sleepless nights dealing with his challenges and the lack of help and he's now doing very well and is going to be a productive member of society. This was a full time job. I hate being a benefit recipient (before this I was a career girl workaholic).., but couldn't have done what I have done without the support of the benefit system.

Like the majority of people on benefits, I don't live in a penthouse.., I live in a basic 3 bed house and in spite of problems with damp etc, recognise we are 'lucky' to have a roof over our heads. I've repaired the place when the LL wouldn't. Often.

I live in an area outside London.., it wasn't expensive but what is going to happen if my LL sells the place and evicts me (as he has warned me could happen) I don't know. Rents have gone up because people are moving here because its cheaper than London
, currently LHA is £300 less than the properties I can see are up for rental.., that's if I can find a LL who will accept a tenant on benefits (not very likely as there are far more tenants than properties so LL's don't have to). Yes its a free world, LL can charge what they want.., but I just want people to see we aren't all just sitting here thinking 'oh goody I can live off the state for the rest of my life in my nice smart penthouse flat'. I do nothing but worry. I try to be proactive. I have given everything I have (and yes received benefits - but believe you me that doesn't allow us to live the life of reilly, I NEVER go out, I budget very very carefully to pay the bills, live on toast and feed the kids to pay the rent some months blah blah blah).

If I am forced to move out of this area.., (which couldn't be predicted as suffering the high rent rises when I moved here) our world will fall apart. My son will have to leave the course he's been aiming for for years, my younger son will have to leave the school who is finally dealing well with his special needs (and I know from experience with my older son how rare this is, its taken a lot of work to get this far) and we will end up in B&B in another area (so the council tells me).

So please stop just thinking we are all like the newspaper articles (which I see as well). Those cases are not the majority.., they are a stereotype.., not all of us. Most of us have full moral fibre.., and doing the best we can. When I was studying I did so to make me unemployment proof.., when I had children I worked, and my then partner worked. I didn't plan on this. Have made lots of efforts to get out of it but to date none of it worked.

So, now both kids are more stable, I am looking at college (my health is not so good now so limits what work I can do). But I have spent many years on benefits.., and needed to. I got into debt at first rather than claim but had to in the end. And now many years later, my family has cost the state but I hope to goodness we will be in a position to 'pay back'. The situation is just not as post after post on here as described except for a small minority of cases. Living on benefits for years was not a positive life choice, it has involved a lot of sacrifice (made willingly for my sons might I add). But I did what I had to to give them a chance.

theartfullodger

SuzieSue wrote: »

.....
Benefits are for people who are born disabled or became disabled before they left full time education and their disability prevents them from working.

Not entirely...

AIUI more than 60% of families in Britain are on benefits: Child Benefit, CTC/WTC, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc etc.. not just for the disabled. See
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

Quite likely half-ish or more of posters on here are on benefits: I am - on 6 benefits: State Pension, Winter Fuel Allowance, Christmas £10 bonus, free eye tests, free prescriptions, 'bus pass....

phoenix_w

deannatrois wrote: »

Here we go again lol.

While I'm glad that benefits have helped you to make ends meet through tough circumstances, your circumstances don't really seem relevant to the issues raised by the article/video/in this thread.

I don't think anyone begrudges housing benefit helping put a roof over the heads of people who need a bit of help.

What people do begrudge is the tax payer subsidising very expensive private rents in the most expensive part of the country.

In my local paper a few weeks ago there was a bit of furore as a London borough council had suggested to a lady with few ties to London that they could subsidise her move up north to my area of the world, and she flatly refused - despite my area of the world being a perfectly nice place with opportunities for all walks of life.

Some people think they're too important to live outside of Greater London, yet they can't afford to live there and in many cases have very few ties to the place - why should they be allowed to put such a huge burden on the South East's public services and why should the taxpayer pick up the tab when the public sector can't provide accommodation in these oversubscribed areas?

19lottie82

OK maybe I should take my judgey pants off here, but the lady who needed a new house, so her child with DS could come home from the hospital....... it wasn't just the damp that was ruining her current home, the whole place was a total dump / pigsty, I don't think that place would be suitable for kids (especially an ill baby), even if it was totally dry / leak free.