Housing benefit?

[carlt]

Your definition of "need" seems somewhat elastic

No your ability to twist something to suit your need to nit pick and question my ethics is somewhat elastic.

 

If the benefit was removed we would survive but my sons would go without things I believe are necessities for all children, or the whole family would make sacrifices to provide those necessities.

 

I am satisfied that my ethics are intact despite your petty attempts to wheedle out a confession that I am doing something contrary to my beliefs.

 

I think you will find the biggest culprit is Labour and the PFI. Schemes that are now coming back to bite us, just a dodge to not put the actual cost on he books.

 

PFI was introduced by John Major in the early 90s and Nu-Labor merely continued his monetarist book-cooking policies.

[sueb]

Being a landlord is a risky business. I know one who is owed £10,000 in unpaid rent, which he won't see.

[Tuscan]

Somebody has to own the housing stock. The problem comes in making sure they charge a reasonable rent, which is the mechanism council housing used to provide.

 

The whole sorry state of affairs came about because houses are seen as a means of increasing capital, not as somewhere to live. It became ever more popular when mortgages were handed out to people who couldn't afford them, and to 'buy to rent' landlords, thus stoking the fires of property price inflation.

 

There is no justification, however, in blaming those individuals who took advantage of cheap credit and their own hard work to accumulate capital in this way. Traditional pensions vehicles didn't pay nearly as well, and are now even worse. Put the blame where it belongs - Thatcher and greedy irresponsible world bankers (in that order).

 

 

 

 

So irresponsible bankers lent money to responsible hard working capitalists. Why is it always someone else's fault . Yes the politicians (Blair not Thatcher but is there a difference) gave their blessing to the banks to ease credit, however it was Joe public that borrowed the money on easy credit for holidays, homes etc. No one was forced to do this. it's about time we all took some responsibility and stopped the blame game.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Tuscan

[mayalld]

No your ability to twist something to suit your need to nit pick and question my ethics is somewhat elastic.

 

If the benefit was removed we would survive but my sons would go without things I believe are necessities for all children, or the whole family would make sacrifices to provide those necessities.

 

So, why not turn down the CB and have the whole family make those sacrifices?

 

You claim CB, not because you have an absolute NEED for that money, but because you are entitled to it.

 

Now, I would say that you should claim CB, but I'm not the one who was spouting about concentrating on need rather than entitlement

[carlt]

So, why not turn down the CB and have the whole family make those sacrifices?

 

You claim CB, not because you have an absolute NEED for that money, but because you are entitled to it.

 

Dave you are so full of nonsense, these days, that it isn't worth arguing with you any more.

 

Your opinion of what I feel is necessary for my family is of no value whatsoever to me.

 

I do not believe I have an absolute need for the money but I do believe it is necessary to provide essentials for my children.

 

Just because your warped sense of values sees those things as not essential does not make me wrong.

 

Me and my OH discussed whether we should claim Child Benefit, on behalf of our children, for a very long time and reached a decision based on our children's needs, not ours, nor our entitlement.

 

We certainly wouldn't base our decisions on your twisted (and constantly changing) morals so there's little point in you attempting to pass judgement.

Edited June 26, 2012 by carlt

[Higgs]

So irresponsible bankers lent money to responsible hard working capitalists.

 

Dickhead economics. Selling on and selling on of debts until no one knew what they had or what they were dealing with. Until the tap was turned off. Nothern Rock couldn't find anyone to lend them anymore money. Time to face up to reality.

 

An economic mirage. Ordinary people should not be expected to see through all of this rubbish. We obviously expect too much from our governments and banking establishments. The problem has become so obvious that these establishments can no longer hide their' incompetence. Current balls-up with software and old system, and reduction of staff - just another lack of sense. Sticking plaster fixes. Front of house, you're paying top dollar for the cosmetics.

 

While we're on the subject of benefits. The railways have been receiving huge benefit payments. Some 4 billion a year. We still get fleeced by them.

[Tuscan]

Dickhead economics. Selling on and selling on of debts until no one knew what they had or what they were dealing with. Until the tap was turned off. Nothern Rock couldn't find anyone to lend them anymore money. Time to face up to reality.

 

An economic mirage. Ordinary people should not be expected to see through all of this rubbish. We obviously expect too much from our governments and banking establishments. The problem has become so obvious that these establishments can no longer hide their' incompetence. Current balls-up with software and old system, and reduction of staff - just another lack of sense. Sticking plaster fixes. Front of house, you're paying top dollar for the cosmetics.

 

While we're on the subject of benefits. The railways have been receiving huge benefit payments. Some 4 billion a year. We still get fleeced by them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are not wrong but these debts were in the main mortgages and loans taken out by irresponsible people who couldn't afford them encouraged by irresponsible bankers and politicians who were not aware of the consequences. Many were fools just a question of scale. Many thousands working for banks and other financial institutions not earning the big bucks of a few also suffered.

[carlt]

.

Edited June 26, 2012 by carlt

[mayalld]

Dave you are so full of nonsense, these days, that it isn't worth arguing with you any more.

 

Your opinion of what I feel is necessary for my family is of no value whatsoever to me.

 

I do not believe I have an absolute need for the money but I do believe it is necessary to provide essentials for my children.

 

Just because your warped sense of values sees those things as not essential does not make me wrong.

 

Me and my OH discussed whether we should claim Child Benefit, on behalf of our children, for a very long time and reached a decision based on our children's needs, not ours, nor our entitlement.

 

We certainly wouldn't base our decisions on your twisted (and constantly changing) morals so there's little point in you attempting to pass judgement.

 

As I've said, I believe that you should claim it, because you are entitled to it.

 

You were the one who tried to storm the moral high ground, with talk of people claiming on the basis of need rather than entitlement.

 

It seems only fair to test how firmly rooted to that high ground you are by enquiring as to exactly how you apply it to yourself

[carlt]

It seems only fair to test how firmly rooted to that high ground you are by enquiring as to exactly how you apply it to yourself

Which I have answered to my satisfaction though it has nothing to do with moral high ground. I leave such pathetic witterings to you.

 

As I have said, we based our decision to claim CB on our childrens' needs, not our needs nor our entitlement and certainly not based on your opinion, someone whose double standards are bizarre beyond belief.

 

Now, am I qualified to contribute to the debate or do you still feel me unworthy?

Edited June 26, 2012 by carlt

[KevMc]

Ordinary people should not be expected to see through all of this rubbish.

 

Who these 'ordinary' people that shouldn't be expected to have the common sense to know that loans need to be repaid ?

[bowten]

Totally off topic but I'm pleased to see so many people proud to call themselves "Long Standing Members"

Warms the cockles of this girls heart...

I'm new here by the way.

Hi.

Well,well somebody has a sense of humour.

 

Plenty of plumbers required in this country.Use the money if you want to buy a boat,however I am sure with your qualifications you could fall into a job tomorrow.Which brings me to this point,when you have a boat as your home and you can get a plumbers job quite quickly why would you want benefits?Once in a job you will be able to go self employed later.

Simples.This way you don't upset anyone and you won't be looking over your shoulder all the time. Edited June 26, 2012 by bowten

[Higgs]

Who these 'ordinary' people that shouldn't be expected to have the common sense to know that loans need to be repaid ?

 

I'm sure people know that if you buy a mars bar it has to be paid for. I don't think they should be expected to predict an economics bombshell.

[KevMc]

I'm sure people know that if you buy a mars bar it has to be paid for. I don't think they should be expected to predict an economics bombshell.

But the politicians that kept borrowing to fund the profligacy should have known

[Higgs]

But the politicians that kept borrowing to fund the profligacy should have known

 

 

But they're numpties.

[FORTUNATA]

Yep, that's what I've been saying before. The Tories are basically grafting over here the American Welfare system. As ever they seem incapable of initiating policy of their own but always pop over to the U.S. on fact finding tours. This is really bad news as Americans have a very inadequte system to protect people from poverty.

What I still can't quite fathom is how the Tories can reconcile the E.U social charter with American legislation because the two don't mix.

Apart from capping housing benefit they also seek to overhaul labour rights and employment protection rights.

If your under 35 The rules have got a lot harder, and seem if you are under 25 they are going to get harder still.

[KevMc]

But they're numpties.

And whose fault is that I wonder?

 

I honestly think we have got ourselves into a position where we have politicians who know nothing except politics and see their job as getting re-elected and nothing else, the system will never change because the only people who can change it have a vested interest in not changing it. No-one has any respect for politicians (they have done nothing to earn it); people are kept reasonably happy the same way the Romans kept the plebs happy - for bread and circuses read dole and olympics/big brother etc; and we have the illusion of democracy where we get the chance to oust one lot for another every 5 years but they are all as bad as each other.... I have to agree with another thread -that we are going to hell in a handcart.

 

Its all too depressing so I'm off for a beer to celebrate another year

[FORTUNATA]

"This is what happens when crony capitalism runs the show."

 

In the USSR you had automatic housing. Same in East Germany. Also automatic employment so everybody has a job. I know the USSR was based on dictatorship but it's a pity Gorbachev didn't manage to reform the system before he was overtaken by events, and capitalism (temporarily) became accepted.

 

 

 

The whole housing market has been altered due to a factor of both Housing Benefit and Buy to Rent. The stock for people who wish to buy has reduced due to people owning multiple houses as a means to make money.

 

Selling off of Social Housing means the state has little control over it other than as a money pit.

 

This means that the state transfers money (tax money) into the private sector. So, we have several problems caused.

 

Those who wish to buy a house are trapped by high rental costs, find it difficult to save and also have inflated house prices due to the skewed market.

 

Those who are renting have very little legislation on their side.

 

Some of the private "social" housing are in terrible condition, but the landlords have no incentive to maintain them as they have a captive market - you either put up or shut up.

 

This is what happens when crony capitalism runs the show.

[chazzy]

I'm off for a beer to celebrate another year Is that another year older? Happy birthday Kev

[Tuscan]

But they're numpties.

 

 

 

And that my friend ends today's economic lecture.....................

[Smelly]

Maybe the answer is to either adjust HB levels up and down to suit regional rent variations ?

 

HB has been doing that ever since it's inception.

 

 

I think we need control of private rents and better protected tenancies like in Germany.

Or like we had until 1986

 

Dave you are so full of nonsense, these days, that it isn't worth arguing with you any more.

 

Your opinion of what I feel is necessary for my family is of no value whatsoever to me.

 

I do not believe I have an absolute need for the money but I do believe it is necessary to provide essentials for my children.

 

Just because your warped sense of values sees those things as not essential does not make me wrong.

 

Me and my OH discussed whether we should claim Child Benefit, on behalf of our children, for a very long time and reached a decision based on our children's needs, not ours, nor our entitlement.

 

We certainly wouldn't base our decisions on your twisted (and constantly changing) morals so there's little point in you attempting to pass judgement.

 

Lets not forget; in a slightly wider context, that until recently receipt of Child Benefit was pivotal to a child being accepted as part of one's household. The Government still pretty much force CB down families necks as it makes their administration so much easier to assess a household by something concrete.

 

And while I'm at it; Dave, there's a chink in your armor don't forget, don't forget you once signed on and happily received a giro which you didn't really need...

Edited June 26, 2012 by Smelly

[blackrose]

Edited, because it's already been said.

Edited June 26, 2012 by blackrose

[mayalld]

And while I'm at it; Dave, there's a chink in your armor don't forget, don't forget you once signed on and happily received a giro which you didn't really need...

no chink in my armour!

 

My position is that people should claim what they are entitled to and I did so (as it happens I didn't need the money so I spent it on my grandson)

 

Carl pitched in with the suggestion that we should only claim what we need and should not claim things we are entitled to if we don't need it. I disagree with his position and the implied criticism of people who claim what they are entitled to. As he says, he is happy with his decision, and that is fine, but he is hardly in a position to lecture anybody about only claiming for needs.

[CV32]

there in lies the problem - 'entitled to' ... people are not entitled to anything. Its that ideal that has got us in this benefit dependent society.

[carlt]

Carl pitched in with the suggestion that we should only claim what we need and should not claim things we are entitled to if we don't need it. I disagree with his position and the implied criticism of people who claim what they are entitled to. As he says, he is happy with his decision, and that is fine, but he is hardly in a position to lecture anybody about only claiming for needs.

I did not say anybody should do anything Dave. It is you who tells people what they should or shouldn't do.

 

I suggested that it would be nice if we only claimed what we needed and I am happy that I and my OH discussed our children's needs and whether we should or shouldn't claim CB far more intently than the vast majority of couples, before putting in a CB claim.

 

I have not lectured anybody and your insistence that I justify my opinion is pretty idiotic, considering the high and mighty condemnations that you dole out.

 

You have reduced your debating technique down to a mere attempt at character assassination and, before you put words in my mouth, I suggest you go back and read what I said before twisting it into a pathetic little lie, to devalue my argument.

 

For the record, Dave, this is what I said before you diverted the discussion into a personal attack on my private affairs:

 

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.