Right to Buy - Unethical/Sinister change?

Guest101

sevenhills wrote: »

We elected a Tory Government in 2010, I thought they did away with 'scroungers' and they fixed our broken society.
Benefits do alter how people live, which party will change that?

I'm unsure why you're making this political, but the answer is clearly, no - people still abuse the system both legally and illegally.


What do you mean alter how people live?

Zizou

Guest101 wrote: »

What do you mean alter how people live?

It does! But its a government way of keeping tabs on people!

Some families do fraud and don't work and survive on benefits, this way they do not pay any rent if they live in a council house!

And to pay all these benefits, tax payers have to pay more! Council tax/NI going up every years to support these kinds of people!

I think all benefits should be stopped except if you are severely physically/mentally unable to work! People should be monitored/ reported for doing benefits fraud!

Zizou

Council houses are not thing of a past! They are paying private landlords to house people who apply for a council house!

This way council are not buying properties to reduce their costs.

Guest101

Zizou wrote: »

It does! But its a government way of keeping tabs on people! - In what way? No-one is stopping people from not claiming. And if you are claiming there are rules - typically about what work you can do and still claim.

Some families do fraud and don't work and survive on benefits, this way they do not pay any rent if they live in a council house! - I agree that it should not be a lifestyle

And to pay all these benefits, tax payers have to pay more! Council tax/NI going up every years to support these kinds of people! - I think you're confused, but anyway - yes the taxpayer supports them.

I think all benefits should be stopped except if you are severely physically/mentally unable to work! People should be monitored/ reported for doing benefits fraud!

People are reported and monitored but what I'm saying is that benefits should not be a lifestyle choice.


(I think you're saying both?)

sevenhills

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm unsure why you're making this political, but the answer is clearly, no - people still abuse the system both legally and illegally.

What is the point in complaining, if we elected a party that was going to solve the issue(if it exists) and it failed.

Guest101 wrote: »

What do you mean alter how people live?

Benefits enable people to live as single parents, which is not good for the children.
Our benefits(although they are being lowered) enable people to have more children. Spain which has much fewer child benefits has a declining birth rate, the last time I look the UK had a thriving birth rate.
I am anti-benefits, when they alter how people behave; at least disability benefits help those with disabilities.
Going way off topic

sevenhills

Zizou wrote: »

I think all benefits should be stopped except if you are severely physically/mentally unable to work! People should be monitored/ reported for doing benefits fraud!

We should all publish are tax/earnings, as Norway have done for years.

Guest101

sevenhills wrote: »

What is the point in complaining, if we elected a party that was going to solve the issue(if it exists) and it failed. - well, I'm not complaining, I'm discussing - which is what fora are for.



Benefits enable people to live as single parents, which is not good for the children. - I typically agree, but I avoid making generic sweeping statements. Benefits have contributed to the breakdown of relationships. In the past couples would have stuck with it, now don't. individually that may be a good thing in some circumstances, but for society it is anything but.
Our benefits(although they are being lowered) enable people to have more children. - That is actually a good thing. Assuming that couples stay together, having 2 or more children will ultimately help the economy, if the benefits lifestyle changes. Spain which has much fewer child benefits has a declining birth rate, the last time I look the UK had a thriving birth rate.
I am anti-benefits, when they alter how people behave; at least disability benefits help those with disabilities.
Going way off topic

I think I see your point. And I agree to a degree. A declining population is obviously a bad thing, so we want to avoid that. What benefits should do is help (or compel) people to better themselves. That need not necessarily be simply a zero hour minimum wage job, but actually require people to gain qualifications, provide a social or civil service, or support one.

Guest101

sevenhills wrote: »

We should all publish are tax/earnings, as Norway have done for years.

That's strictly not quite true. In Norway you must register to access the system and people are notified who is checking up on them.


So the information is available, but it's not published publically if you see what I mean.


A study found that the 'happiness' gap has widened since the system was available online (ie more easily accessible).


Some people are happier (those who earn more) and some unhappier (those who earn less)

Norman_Castle

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Eh? Yes, I'm a council. So are you. So is everybody. Their money is my money. Where do you think council funding comes from?


John Bird is an !!!!!!.

Funding for council housing comes from loans which are repaid from rental income. Council housing budgets are separate from other council finances. They keep separate accounts called The Housing Revenue Account. They cannot subsidise or be subsidised by other means.

John Bird thinks you're an ignoramus.

lincroft1710

Guest101 wrote: »

A declining population is obviously a bad thing

Completely disagree, already far too many people for the Earth's resources.