Housing benefit?

[Guest wanted]

Fine then he can go live in a council estate where no one else wants to live and pay miminal rent and tax out of his 20k and work not chill in the countryside while his mooring is paid by the tax payer.

 

Hard to let is a long outdated term that few boroughs use now. I am not sure why you think that people on benefits should live in shit holes. Sorry that you had a tough time, but is it rational to expect others to repeat our misfortunes?

[carlt]

By the same token, it was Jimmy Carr's "entitlement" to minimize his tax bill. The same people who scream "It's your entitlement" also seem to be the same ones who object to someone better off using their "entitlment" to reduce their tax burden.

No I tend to think "need" is more appropriate than "entitlement" in both cases.

 

I'm not sure anyone who is in a position to carry out a Jimmy Carr style dodge could ever really claim that they "need" to do it.

 

 

If I went to OP's country with 20 grand and bought a boat, would their social system pay for my mooring? No I thought not.

Actually if it's the ROI they probably would.

[Guest wanted]

I've not read all this thread, but hasn't OP been living in another country? Perhaps contributing to their social system? Now, when the shit hits the fan, he's back to good old social security Blighty where they dish out everyone's hard earned money to people who don't work and haven't paid in a penny to our system. No wonder the place is bankrupt.

 

If I went to OP's country with 20 grand and bought a boat, would their social system pay for my mooring? No I thought not.

 

The point that I am interested in is that he wants, yes wants to use the system to get himself out of a position. There are plenty that would take and not give but I don't believe that the OP is one of them. The very fact that he has plans and aspirations is a damn sight more than slot of people I have met in my career I promise you. His country or origin is of no interest to me.

[Little Else]

Actually I did not have £500 laying around while living in a shit hole where no one else wanted to live there is nothing lucky about that it was hell.

I had to borrow the £500 and do back breaking building work for two months to pay the money.

Luck is having 20k and the ordacity and bare face cheek to expect housing benefit after buying a home that floats in the countryside but cant be arsed to be resourcefull enough to move it around!

 

No one has to become a cmer and can legitimately move on enough to satisfy the rules and still be able to work like many do.

 

The housing benefit system is there for people who are really hard up, and you have the cheek to call me words bile.

Get a reality check as my hard earned back breaking taxes are not for keeping people in countryside moorings because they want to be comfortable.

The damn cheek of it.

 

''edited due to extremely angry swear words''

 

I rest my case. The anger and rage coming out of this thread is out of all proportion to the initial post. You are not the only one who works hard and pays taxes.

[carlt]

I also don't get jealous of how other people may claim or not.

 

I'm not jealous of how he or anyone else chooses to claim. I don't really care.

 

He asked the question and I gave my opinion based on my experience and what I would do in his position.

 

What he chooses to do is entirely up to him, as long as he stays within the law.

[Guest wanted]

I'm not jealous of how he or anyone else chooses to claim. I don't really care.

 

He asked the question and I gave my opinion based on my experience and what I would do in his position.

 

What he chooses to do is entirely up to him, as long as he stays within the law.

 

Sure, stating my position on the jealousy point wasn't intended to suggest you were. I have had my tea now and have calmed down a little after work, I will try and aim my ranting with more accuracy!

[Gibbo]

Actually if it's the ROI they probably would.

 

And aren't they even more bankrupt?

 

The prosecution rests

 

No I tend to think "need" is more appropriate than "entitlement" in both cases.

 

And I would agree with you. The problem, as I see it, is that there are so many more people who consider "it is my entitlement to claim" as more important than "it is my need". We hear on here so often "it is your entitlement to claim" (with emphasis on the word entitlement) when someone starts a thread about "scrounging" (for want of a better word) off the rest of the country.

 

The social security system is supposed to be a last ditch safety belt afair, yet there are people who use it as a way of life, and remain there forever, because it's too easy once you've got into it.

[Guest wanted]

And aren't they even more bankrupt?

 

The prosecution rests

 

 

 

And I would agree with you. The problem, as I see it, is that there are so many more people who consider "it is my entitlement to claim" as more important than "it is my need". We hear on here so often "it is your entitlement to claim" (with emphasis on the word entitlement) when someone starts a thread about "scrounging" (for want of a better word) off the rest of the country.

 

The social security system is supposed to be a last ditch safety belt afair, yet there are people who use it as a way of life, and remain there forever, because it's too easy once you've got into it.

Believe it or not I don't disagree, I think we have missed the nuances within this thread a little. I, by default use the word entitled in a professional sense, as in looking at homeless people and helping to work out what they could claim in order to live. I spend the rest of my time trying to help them back off of benefits in order to self sustain themselves.

 

ETA, I think the OP is trying to do this hence my support.

Edited June 25, 2012 by wanted

[KirraMisha]

Hard to let is a long outdated term that few boroughs use now. I am not sure why you think that people on benefits should live in shit holes. Sorry that you had a tough time, but is it rational to expect others to repeat our misfortunes?

The point I am making is the benefit system should be for people who really in dire straights with nothing not with 20k.

I dont expect anyone to go through hardship.

[Gibbo]

Believe it or not I don't disagree, I think we have missed the nuances within this thread a little. I, by default use the word entitled in a professional sense, as in looking at homeless people and helping to work out what they could claim in order to live. I spend the rest of my time trying to help them back off of benefits in order to self sustain themselves.

 

ETA, I think the OP is trying to do this hence my support.

 

We can go totally OT now...

 

Property in the UK is very expensive. Has been for years compared to the rest of the developed world, compared to the USA, compared to most of the rest of Europe. Therefore rent is also very high.

 

Supply and demand has a large part to play in property rental prices. If there was no housing benefit, surely rental prices would fall? They hold it artificially high. The only people that win are landlords. Everyone else (either through their taxes or through renting) loses. The landlords take it all.

 

A basic right to human life should be "somewhere to live". If you can't afford somewhere "big and posh", so be it, you should be able to at least live somewhere not too crappy. But why should everyone else pay for it whilst the only winners are property owners? Housing benefit makes the taxpayer pay for it twice. Firstly, you can't afford to live anywhere, so the tax payer pays for it outright, secondly, housing benefit has put up the price of rental properties (through the supply and demand equation) so the tax payer pays an inflated price. How sensible is that?

 

Scrap housing benefit completely, rental prices will fall, greedy landlords will lose a few quid, and everyone can afford somewhere to live.

 

Property is for people to live in. It isn't for people to make profit off. That is morally wrong.

 

Where is my logic wrong?

 

The point I am making is the benefit system should be for people who really in dire straights with nothing not with 20k.

 

Have a green thing.

[Guest wanted]

We can go totally OT now...

 

Property in the UK is very expensive. Has been for years compared to the rest of the developed world, compared to the USA, compared to most of the rest of Europe. Therefore rent is also very high.

 

Supply and demand has a large part to play in property rental prices. If there was no housing benefit, surely rental prices would fall? They hold it artificially high. The only people that win are landlords. Everyone else (either through their taxes or through renting) loses. The landlords take it all.

 

A basic right to human life should be "somewhere to live". If you can't afford somewhere "big and posh", so be it, you should be able to at least live somewhere not too crappy. But why should everyone else pay for it whilst the only winners are property owners? Housing benefit makes the taxpayer pay for it twice. Firstly, you can't afford to live anywhere, so the tax payer pays for it outright, secondly, housing benefit has put up the price of rental properties (through the supply and demand equation) so the tax payer pays an inflated price. How sensible is that?

 

Scrap housing benefit completely, rental prices will fall, greedy landlords will lose a few quid, and everyone can afford somewhere to live.

 

Property is for people to live in. It isn't for people to make profit off. That is morally wrong.

 

Where is my logic wrong?

 

 

 

Have a green thing.

 

I was nearly with you up until the abolishing HB bit, I do think we need reform but still think we need a safety net that bridges the gap. I am in the middle of my career, who knows what is around the corner but if it does all go tits up then I hope I get help before I am on my knees.

 

The point I am making is the benefit system should be for people who really in dire straights with nothing not with 20k.

I dont expect anyone to go through hardship.

 

The OP has convinced me that the money he is talking about comes with conditions.

[onionbargee]

why are benefits scroungers claims becoming a regular feature on this forum ?

 

 

And can i claim for a solid gold boat please ?

[Smelly]

why are benefits claims becoming a regular feature on this forum ?

 

Because increasing numbers of people are finding themselves without the money to exist. Is it that difficult to understand in the deepest recession in living memory?

 

 

And can i claim for a solid gold boat please ?

 

No

[Guest wanted]

Because increasing numbers of people are finding themselves without the money to exist. Is it that difficult to understand in the deepest recession in living memory?

 

 

 

No

 

 

Phew!

[Gibbo]

I was nearly with you up until the abolishing HB bit,

Why? Who, exactly, benefits from housing benefit other than landlords?

 

I'm willing to learn here because it's not my field at all, but I really can't see how anyone gets anything out of it apart from the person who owns the (otherwise empty) property.

[carlt]

Why? Who, exactly, benefits from housing benefit other than landlords?

The mortgage providers who the landlords are in hock to.

 

The problem with abolishing HB is the effect it would have on mortgagees who would have the same amount to pay out but vastly reduced income from lower rents.

[Guest wanted]

Why? Who, exactly, benefits from housing benefit other than landlords?

 

I'm willing to learn here because it's not my field at all, but I really can't see how anyone gets anything out of it apart from the person who owns the (otherwise empty) property.

I agree that Landlords have made a tidy profit out of HB in some cases but I am not clear what you are suggesting, the LA's no longer own their housing stock. Private landlords will not give their flats to anyone for free. What ever sanctions we put on unscrupulous landlords they will exploit the situation and still house unfortunate souls in even more dire situations. There is a human element to this which will be put at huge risk if we withdraw perhaps the only safety net we have.

 

ETA it is well worth remembering that it's only about 1 in 8 HB claimants who are unemployed. The rest are topping up low incomes.

Edited June 25, 2012 by wanted

[wannabe]

Don't take it personally, instead just feel sorry for the people who do not understand the benefit system and why we live in a welfare state. I am sure you will manage to get yourself sorted. As a UK citizen you are entitled to benefits that is why I pay my taxes to help people like yourself. It always makes me smile when people say "they have not paid in" yet I am sure these people are happy to send there children to a NHS Doctor or Hospital when the children "have not paid in" My Mother receives a State Pension but has never worked in her life but my Father did.

 

Well said that Man

About time people thought what a welfare state really means

It's not winners and losers

It's all of us

[Gibbo]

The mortgage providers who the landlords are in hock to.

 

The problem with abolishing HB is the effect it would have on mortgagees who would have the same amount to pay out but vastly reduced income from lower rents.

 

Isn't that assuming we live in a "buy to rent" market? Which may be true to a certain extent. But surely (I really don't know) the majority of rental properties are owned outright? (as I say, I really don't know).

 

But, and it's a big but, if there's not enough rental income to meet the mortgage payments for a buy-to-rent property then hard luck, you can't afford it, you made a bad business decision. That's like me complaining that I can't meet the payments on my Bentley (I don't have one - it's just an analogy) because sales of one of my products slumped. Tough. It gets repossessed. Hard luck, that's life. "Shouldn't have been so greedy to buy it in the first place". As I said before, property is for people to live in, it's not (or at least it shouldn't be) not for greedy landlords, who don't actually want to do any work to earn a living, to make a profit from. They could always get a job.

 

Though I do detect a certain anti capitalist sarcasm in your post

[Smelly]

and think; if they'd limited the cap in max rent payable to new claimants, with the existing element of discretionary protection for existing tenants, it would have depressed rents without making shit loads of people homeless.

 

Or... if they imposed the Tobin tax maybe we could institute a more progressive means of rebalancing the rental market.

 

I could dream that our current administration would not seek to take the read fro those most in need; but of course they feel so disenfrachised that they don't vote and don't contribute to the campaign coffers so they don't count

[carlt]

Hard luck, that's life. "Shouldn't have been so greedy to buy it in the first place". As I said before, property is for people to live in, it's not (or at least it shouldn't be) not for greedy landlords, who don't actually want to do any work to earn a living, to make a profit from. They could always get a job.

 

Though I do detect a certain anti capitalist sarcasm in your post

Not as much as yours. I didn't mention greed.

 

Actually it wasn't anti-capitalist, in fact I could almost be sympathetic towards landlords if they've taken out loans based on a projected income and then the government suddenly pulls the rug from under them.

[Gibbo]

ETA it is well worth remembering that it's only about 1 in 8 HB claimants who are unemployed. The rest are topping up low incomes.

 

Which more or less confirms it.

 

If HB stoppped overnight, would the landlords really see their propertes empty with zero income? Or would they drop the rental to what they're really worth?

 

Landlords take the piss with rental prices. As does everyone else (i.e estate agents). Without HB they wouldn't be able to. It's only HB that allows them to do so.

 

We have an empty house in Salford. We rent it out for almost nowt (about 50% the going rate). We don't need it, we have somewhere to live. The couple who rent it are really gratefull. That's how housing should be. Not some greedy f*&^ing landlord seeing it as a way to make a fat profit. It's disgusting. Especially when it's a left wing propagandist doing the same spouting and renting his properties out at the maximum he can get for them. Probably paid for with HB.

[Smelly]

what they're really worth?

 

 

 

Isn't what they're really worth what the market will tolerate?

[Gibbo]

Not as much as yours. I didn't mention greed.

 

Actually it wasn't anti-capitalist, in fact I could almost be sympathetic towards landlords if they've taken out loans based on a projected income and then the government suddenly pulls the rug from under them.

 

Why?

 

The only honourable reason to borrow money for property is to live in/on it or develop it (properly). Anything else is hoping to profiteer from someone less fortunate (probably paid for with HB contributions) and thus, greed.

 

Isn't what they're really worth what the market will tolerate?

 

Of course it is. And even more so if it's not totally distorted with housing benefit.

 

Remove the HB, all of a sudden they're worth less.

 

Come on Smelly, I know you're not stupid. You're not telling me HB isn't holding rental prices higher than they would be without it? I absolutely know for a fact they are.

 

Take it to a stupid level. The government decrees that everone is entitled to (and in fact the government will pay for) a battery monitor. You think me, Victron and Mastervolt won't put the price up?. I'll still get the price. Who has won? Me. Victron and Mastervolt. No one else. As stupid as it sounds, it's no different.

[Guest wanted]

Which more or less confirms it.

 

If HB stoppped overnight, would the landlords really see their propertes empty with zero income? Or would they drop the rental to what they're really worth?

 

Landlords take the piss with rental prices. As does everyone else (i.e estate agents). Without HB they wouldn't be able to. It's only HB that allows them to do so.

 

We have an empty house in Salford. We rent it out for almost nowt (about 50% the going rate). We don't need it, we have somewhere to live. The couple who rent it are really gratefull. That's how housing should be. Not some greedy f*&^ing landlord seeing it as a way to make a fat profit. It's disgusting. Especially when it's a left wing propagandist doing the same spouting and renting his properties out at the maximum he can get for them. Probably paid for with HB.

 

So the one in the 1 in 8, who is probably one of the most vulnerable suffers whilst the other 7 are heading towards the same fate.

 

I admire what you are doing but I don't think this allows for some of the most disparate, and vulnerable in our society.

 

Would you suggest that the grateful couple who live in your house could go and rent another property with their hard earned and allow an unemployed teenager who has experienced violence to live there instead?

Edited June 25, 2012 by wanted