Homeless Dept (Enfield) Video

booksurr

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

The only difference between the two is whether you have savings over a certain amount.

exactly. The person who put in effort to get reward before their "hiccup" then has to spend all their savings before they get help compared to the sloth who did nothing yet gets everything on a plate
and yes that is a general attack against means testing in the context of the rich supporting the lazy

jjlandlord

Receiving HB means being a sloth or being lazy... Not.
In fact many low pay jobs can be amongst the hardest.

A minority abuse the system. Always has been, always will be, for any system.

[Deleted User]

And of course, it doesn't matter what disruption this causes, and if my son's (both of them) schooling which I've worked very hard to set up.., falls apart.., meaning the chances of them being productive members of society are vastly reduced. Its taken three years to get my younger son's schooling set up.., 8 years and one move to get my older son where he is now (predicted 2 GCSE's, actual 7, passed his level 2 course at merit level, now on a level 3 course and doing very well).

I'm not in a particularly good area, just better than I was in terms of schooling for special needs, it wasn't particularly expensive to rent here.., now it is. LHA hasn't caught up with the rise in rental prices.., at all. Its the same as it was two years ago.., so there's no way it can even be set up to be at the level of the bottom third of rental prices. Not quite sure how that one works out.

The way we are going, we are going to have ghettos more than we do.

Whatever is said about me.., is it my son's fault they have special needs and so should be forced to have no chance of a decent education? I'm not talking top rated schools, just a chance of having their needs met.

thequant

deannatrois wrote: »

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.

Reads more like a DLA application when they ask, do you have any further information to support your claim.

ABrass

SuzieSue wrote: »

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.

That's what you want and think they should be. Maybe that is what the terms should mean but it doesn't describe anything like where the 'benefits' bill goes at the present. That's mostly to employed people and pensioners.

What you describe is more like some form of nationwide insurance scheme. Perhaps it could be called 'National Insurance' and be taken from people's pay packets in some manner...

Jesting aside it still isn't that simple and if you try to hammer a complicated situation into a simple one-size fits all policy then some will suffer. In the case of benefits its often those who are most vulnerable.

ABrass

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

I think we need to look after those that have fallen into misfortune. However, if you are contributing nothing through working, you just cannot choose where to live. You just have to take, with gratitude, what is offered, even if it means moving to another town. This is the consequence of not being able to stand on your own two feet.

Indeed, we don't really need cleaners in central London, or bar staff or people to work behind the counter at that quaint sandwich place. After all they can't stand on their own two feet without benefits.

Oh sorry, you meant unemployed people? If only benefits were spent only, or mostly, on them. That's like using footballers as the justification for the 50% tax band. They're part of it but they aren't the significant part.

chichee

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.

If it were simple we would have found a perfect solution to benefits (mostly paid to workers and pensioners) by now. As such it's reasonable to accept it isn't simple, which in turn implies that you might be missing something.

Not missing something, but thank you for your comment.

I don't mind if people are on benefits. However, only for those people who should rightly receive it. It has been going on for far too long where lots of unscrupulous individuals/people take advantage of the system and expect the state, meaning us hard working taxpayers, to just pay up because they don't understand the idea of contraception or that maybe they should go out and try to get a job.

The state is being crippled or has already been crippled with people who demand the earth and expect others to pay for their housing, food and whatever else you can imagine. Ultimately, it come down to us, the taxpayers, to pay for this.

bouicca21

Actually the single biggest drain on the welfare budget is people like me, who have wilfully got older in the expectation of receiving a state pension.

Maybe the solution is to be like Australia, where state pensions are means tested. Bet Dave is trying to work out how he could spin that one.

ABrass

chichee wrote: »

Not missing something, but thank you for your comment.

I don't mind if people are on benefits. However, only for those people who should rightly receive it. It has been going on for far too long where lots of unscrupulous individuals/people take advantage of the system and expect the state, meaning us hard working taxpayers, to just pay up because they don't understand the idea of contraception or that maybe they should go out and try to get a job.

The state is being crippled or has already been crippled with people who demand the earth and expect others to pay for their housing, food and whatever else you can imagine. Ultimately, it come down to us, the taxpayers, to pay for this.

But are they? We pay out a massive chunk in social security payments but most of it is to people who haven't had the common decency to die shortly after retiring (most unkind of them). Yes you over 60s with your free tv licenses, swimming and bus passes! :mad: (I don't' think they even come out of that budget)

Of the rest the majority is paid to people in work. It's easy to get distracted by Channel 4 documentaries about familes with 50,000 children living in a Mayfair mansion but the people you complain about are almost insignificant.

We waste a huge amount of time and effort chasing down 'cheats' and wasting it on badly though through bedroom taxes at the same time that we cut the number of HMRC staff responsible for chasing down tax evasion. If you want to be outraged by anything that should be your target.

gazter

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

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.

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

This is not true. I know where the stat comes from, some Guardian journalist picked up on an incorrect headline it is now quoted as truth.
Most of the new applicants in the years 2010 to 2012 were in work. But they represent a tiny proportion of overall recipients, about 14% of all HB recipients are in work.