Universal cruelty number of repossessions about to skyrocket

AG47

As he says in the video, it’s still only about 30% already on universal cruelty. As the other 70% move on to it, the food banks and repossession people will not be able to cope.

https://youtu.be/ccbCX16zO5g

lisyloo

I wouldnt expect people on benefits to be able to own their own home.

Arklight

Universal Credit is a scandal. It's intentionally designed to be so hard to claim that people can't and miss out on benefits they are entitled to.

You have to hand it to the Tories though. For the first time they've managed to wrap up the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, the low paid, and the homeless, to drown them all in the same sack.

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

I wouldnt expect people on benefits to be able to own their own home.

Indeed, because the money used to "buy" it isn't theirs.

The same principle should apply in the public sector generally. If you bought your house on a public sector salary, it belongs to the state which would perhaps receive it from your estate.

This is fair to all taxpayers.

lisyloo

Universal Credit is a scandal. It's intentionally designed to be so hard to claim that people can't and miss out on benefits they are entitled to.

You have to hand it to the Tories though. For the first time they've managed to wrap up the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, the low paid, and the homeless, to drown them all in the same sack.

I agree with you and I’m ashamed I voted Tory (and won’t be doing so again), but I’m not sure what it has to do with repossessions.

The long term disabled, sick, unemployed don’t own houses anyway.
They will only be repossessed if this is a change of circumstances.

If you have a decent lifestyle and want to protect it you should get insurance as the benefits system won’t support you to that level, that has always been the case. It’s called financial planning and requires a level of personal responsibility.
This is nothing new, yes benefits are particularly tough at the moment, but it’s always been the case that benefits won’t support a previous working lifestyle.

Arklight

westernpromise wrote: »

Indeed, because the money used to "buy" it isn't theirs.

The same principle should apply in the public sector generally. If you bought your house on a public sector salary, it belongs to the state which would perhaps receive it from your estate.

This is fair to all taxpayers.

How about public sector workers (teachers, doctors, nurses) just aren't paid in money but get vouchers instead?

You can give them different coloured vouchers depending on how important you think they are. Women can be identified by pink vouchers which are always worth half of a man's.

Malthusian

Arklight wrote: »

Universal Credit is a scandal. It's intentionally designed to be so hard to claim that people can't and miss out on benefits they are entitled to.

So are all benefits and this is a cross-party consensus. Look at Brown's tax credits, Sure Start or CHC.

If benefits were easier to claim they would have to be cut.

It is part of the paradox of poverty. Being poor is expensive*, being unemployed is exhausting**, claiming free money is hard work.

*Vimes Theory of Boot Economics
**It takes all day for an unemployed person to obtain the means of survival, something which takes a well-off salaried professional less than an hour. This labour-intensity is exacerbated by an unemployed person's poor nutrition and ill-health.

AG47

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree with you and I’m ashamed I voted Tory (and won’t be doing so again), but I’m not sure what it has to do with repossessions.

The long term disabled, sick, unemployed don’t own houses anyway.
They will only be repossessed if this is a change of circumstances.

If you have a decent lifestyle and want to protect it you should get insurance as the benefits system won’t support you to that level, that has always been the case. It’s called financial planning and requires a level of personal responsibility.
This is nothing new, yes benefits are particularly tough at the moment, but it’s always been the case that benefits won’t support a previous working lifestyle.

Not sure what it has to do with repossessions?

There are record numbers not paying rents and news rules always favour the tenant not the LL.

They take ages and lots of court fees to eventually get em evicted.

This is why repos are going to skyrocket when the other 70% get pushed onto universal cruelty and can no longer pay their rents.

lisyloo

Are you talking about evictions and not repossessions?
If not, I’m not following your logic at all.
Why does an eviction of a tenant mean a LL get repossessed. They simply re-let the property.