Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
sailor0500

Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

Featured Posts

Just to demonstrate how messed up the whole system is follow this.

I retired about 10 years ago 3 years early. I claimed pension credit as I had paid in for 47 years, all well.

I reached retirement age and drew my pension and my pension credit was reduced by an amount equal to my pension. So for 3 years my income remained the same.

As time went by each time my pension increased my pension credit went down by an equal amount . So 5 years on my income remained unchanged. 

I then found I could apply for housing benefit all well. Again each time my pension increased so my housing benefit went down. So now 10 years on my income is exactly the same to the penny as it was when I first retired . I've gone from being comfortable to bordering on broke 

Now before the usual suspects jump in to give me a good kicking I'll explain why I'm not retired and minted.

All the promises about endowment mortgages failed to happen, we got suckered into swopping from repayment and suffered accordingly. Chris got stiffed because her retirement age extended by almost 5 years. Chris will now be able to draw her pension aged 64 and 8 months but we know that our income will fall by an equal amount because HB will be cut by the amount of her pension. So it will be about 12 years that we have lived on the same income  .

Always makes me chuckle when people moan because their income has only risen by 4%, they really should try 12 years with zilch % increase 

Phil 

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think most people would prefer to earn a wage that pays them enough to live on, rather like it did when i started working fifty years ago.  Sadly, this is in most cases  not the way it works, as anyone who has kids struggling to make their way knows well.  Housing benefit is needed because virtually all council housing got sold off and ended up in the hands of private landlords, who could raise rents as much as they wanted because the government essentially paid (and still does) the bit of the rent that the renter couldn't afford.  It was an "unintended consequence" of the Tory concept that homeowners voted Conservative - worked out well, because landlords even more so.

Works exactly the same as letting employers pay crap wages because the Government makes up the difference with tax credits - one's a subsidy to landlords, the other to employers.  What neither of them are is a "benefit" or a handout to the person receiving it - all the benefit, and the handout,  goes to the aforesaid landlord or employer.

Not quite true most of the people that I know that bought their council house still live there, so in reality nothing changed except the owner now maintains the house rather than the council. Some of the ones sold have passed into second owners and arnt rented out, generalization like your statement are hard to prove or disprove so I takr them with a pinch of salt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Not quite true most of the people that I know that bought their council house still live there, so in reality nothing changed except the owner now maintains the house rather than the council. Some of the ones sold have passed into second owners and arnt rented out, generalization like your statement are hard to prove or disprove so I takr them with a pinch of salt

Obviously it’s one of those things that can get exaggerated. However, there is no getting away from the fact that council housing stock is severely depleted and as a young person, virtually impossible to acquire. In the old days when a council house tenant died the house was then available for the next generation of needy person. Now when the same happens, the house is passed down to the children or other beneficiaries, who may or may not need it.

The problem of course is less about allowing tenants to buy their council houses, and more about a complete failure of successive governments of all colours to build new council housing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

‘‘Twas a humorous jape. Remember them?

As was my reply, more of a 'cor mate, you should try and have two of the wallet leeches' kind of way, You read it differently and dropped your trademark snarky nonsense which was totally uncalled for and is why on paper at least I really dislike you. 

 

all yours pal, I have better things to do

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wanted said:

As was my reply, more of a 'cor mate, you should try and have two of the wallet leeches' kind of way, You read it differently and dropped your trademark snarky nonsense which was totally uncalled for and is why on paper at least I really dislike you. 

 

all yours pal, I have better things to do

Wow you never did have a sense of humour. Plus ca change. Although perhaps we can put it down to sleep deprivation?

 

i don’t really dislike you on paper, just when you virtue signal on here.

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dave Payne said:

You are a little out of touch athy, rent continues to increase a hell of a lot more than the minimum wage.

Not so, and not so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BWM said:

 

I'm sure the term handout was only used as an alternative to benefit, not to insult.

It is a synonym in this case: financial aid, often given by the government. I think that "hand-out" is a less emotive term than "benefit": you see, the giver may say that it's a "benefit" but the recipient may not agree. But there's no disputing that it's a hand-out.

4 hours ago, Wanted said:

You don't understand the system.

  • Unemployed can claim full housing benefit
  • Employed on low income can claim some housing benefit  

 

 

  

Yes, I fully understand that, and it backs up what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Athy said:

It is a synonym in this case: financial aid, often given by the government. I think that "hand-out" is a less emotive term than "benefit": you see, the giver may say that it's a "benefit" but the recipient may not agree. But there's no disputing that it's a hand-out.

Hmmmm, I think you are only considering the dictionary definitions and not the vernacular usage. “Hand out” tends to be used in a disparaging way. “Benefit” tends to be used in a dispassionate way. So for most people, “hand out” is a much more emotive term than benefit. Never mind, we’ll let you off this time since you are the best mod on here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Hmmmm, I think you are only considering the dictionary definitions and not the vernacular usage. “Hand out” tends to be used in a disparaging way. “Benefit” tends to be used in a dispassionate way. So for most people, “hand out” is a much more emotive term than benefit. Never mind, we’ll let you off this time since you are the best mod on here?

I can't agree with either of your points, but thank you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Not quite true most of the people that I know that bought their council house still live there, so in reality nothing changed except the owner now maintains the house rather than the council. Some of the ones sold have passed into second owners and arnt rented out, generalization like your statement are hard to prove or disprove so I takr them with a pinch of salt

You will find that in areas such as Milton Keynes, Brighton,Stevenage, Nuneaton, and Chester over half of the properties sold under Right to Buy are now in the hands of private landlords (Milton Keynes scores 70% of former council houses now being rented out privately).

 

The problem with the crap idea was that it was very generous of the Government to spend other people's money giving a substantial discount on these properties. They then barred local Authorities from spending the money received  building replacement houses which has resulted in a fall in the number of council properties from 6.5 million down when Thatcher came up with this wheeze to just under 2 million now with a population increase of 10 million, well I wonder where the housing shortage has come from???:wacko:

 

If it was such a good idea, why not extend it to private landlords having to sell their properties to their residents at a substantial discount?

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You will find that in areas such as Milton Keynes, Brighton,Stevenage, Nuneaton, and Chester over half of the properties sold under Right to Buy are now in the hands of private landlords (Milton Keynes scores 70% of former council houses now being rented out privately).

 

The problem with the crap idea was that it was very generous of the Government to spend other people's money giving a substantial discount on these properties. They then barred local Authorities from spending the money received  building replacement houses which has resulted in a fall in the number of council properties from 6.5 million down when Thatcher came up with this wheeze to just under 2 million now with a population increase of 10 million, well I wonder where the housing shortage has come from???:wacko:

 

If it was such a good idea, why not extend it to private landlords having to sell their properties to their residents at a substantial discount?

What you say doesnt work the houses are still there with people living in them, its just that we have to many people, we cant keep on building houses as one day we will turn around and all there will be is houses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, peterboat said:

What you say doesnt work the houses are still there with people living in them, its just that we have to many people, we cant keep on building houses as one day we will turn around and all there will be is houses!

The houses are still there with people living in them. The difference is that there is now a middleman taking a massive cut, such that for a lot of people, the government has to step in and support their lives with in-work benefits.

 

So effectively, the government is giving public money to those already owning several homes, whilst keeping a large number of people just on the poverty line. Governments of both colours, of course.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an odd thing. The same number of people are chasing the same national stock of accommodation whichever way you cut it. If there were no property available to rent them everyone would have to buy, and the price would rocket. The govt NEEDS private landlords to take the risk of renting to those who are uncreditworthy for a mortgage to buy. 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Yes it has its problems. But on the other hand, why should people earning £100k or more get child benefit? Or Baby boxes if they live in Scotland.

 

Of course it would be much better if employers had to pay a wage that one could reasonably live on. As I said, government designed in-work benefits mean that isn’t the case, hence zero hours contracts and a minimum wage you can’t live on. But of course we all like buying super cheap stuff from Amazon, having services that are dirt cheap eg phone and internet. In fact generally, you don’t hear consumers clamouring for price increases so the minimum-wage employees can be paid more. Consumers tend to head for the cheapest source of something, so the employer who pays the least wages is the successful one.

Households where one parent earns above £60k don't get child benefit. Although they can still claim the benefit there is a 100% tax charge applied to the highest earning partner. The tax charge commences at £50k and becomes 100% at £60k.

 

it leads to a slightly strange situation where a household can earn £99k and still get child benefit whereas one earning £60k might not.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It's an odd thing. The same number of people are chasing the same national stock of accommodation whichever way you cut it. If there were no property available to rent them everyone would have to buy, and the price would rocket. The govt NEEDS private landlords to take the risk of renting to those who are uncreditworthy for a mortgage to buy. 

Yes agreed, and you and I are both private landlords. Nothing wrong with that in my case, because I didn’t buy ex-council housing. I bought a new-build, and jolly expensive it was too. I’ve no idea if any of your properties are ex council houses, but if so I suggest you keep it to yourself?

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

Households where one parent earns above £60k don't get child benefit. Although they can still claim the benefit there is a 100% tax charge applied to the highest earning partner. The tax charge commences at £50k and becomes 100% at £60k.

 

JP

Ok didn’t know that, but I guess it’s a fairly new thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Yes agreed, and you and I are both private landlords. Nothing wrong with that in my case, because I didn’t buy ex-council housing. I bought a new-build, and jolly expensive it was too. I’ve no idea if any of your properties are ex council houses, but if so I suggest you keep it to yourself?

Ok didn’t know that, but I guess it’s a fairly new thing?

Yes, as of 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a small child I asked my parents what 'family allowance' was. They told me it was money to govt gave to people to encourage them to have children to build up the population after the war. 

 

More evidence that governments simply want an ever bigger population to govern. It in the nature and in the interest of the government animal. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the majority of the voting population want two things: 

 

1/ High public spending on services and benefits.

 

2/ Low taxes.

 

Political parties of all persuasions know this, and form their policies accordingly. In the blue corner we have austerity, where the party tries to overcome the imbalance between government spending and tax receipts by pruning spending.

 

Over on the red side, further spending is promised, with the additional financial burden being placed upon the relatively rich.

 

The blue side leave personal taxes unchanged, they cannot rise, to even suggest so is sacrosanct. Instead they tinker around the edges, gaining a little more revenue from higher taxes on the likes of insurance products. It's a small amount though. Their efforts to execute austerity are constantly challenged. First by their political opponents, then by the media and finally by the house of lords.

 

Over on the red side, it seems that personal taxes are also sacrosanct. Unlike the blues though, so is all government spending, nothing can be cut at any time. This is core to the party's ethos.

 

'Taxing the rich' has and is failing, and will continue to fail in the future. Avoidance is rife, armies of respected 'professionals' make their living out of it. The global nature of the economic world makes it ever more easy to move things around to avoid the clutches of a relatively high tax regime. So, in reality, the only way a government can ensure sufficient funds for a socialist style spending and welfare system is to increase personal taxes. The vast majority of personal taxes are collected through the PAYE system, a fantastic tool for government, taxes cannot be avoided.

 

Perhaps Wilson was right, a starting rate of 35% is needed to fund a socialist spending regime.

 

Now, we have a problem. The voting public would like to at least maintain current spending, and possibly increase it. However, this is very much secondary compared to the prospect of higher taxes. No party proposing this could ever be elected in Britain or, I suspect, anywhere else in the world.

 

Conduct a poll: "would you prefer a/ to keep more of your money to spend as you choose or b/ entrust more to the government of the time for them to spend on your behalf" the result in Britain would be a landslide.

 

And so we have it. 

 

  

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

 

Thats it, just to deny it?

 

Wow.

:P

Yes indeed, expressing different opinions, or "discussion" as it is also known, is not only allowed but actively encouraged here. On what figures do you base your assertions?

I'm pleased to see that I have the "wow" factor. 

Edited by Athy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It's an odd thing. The same number of people are chasing the same national stock of accommodation whichever way you cut it. If there were no property available to rent them everyone would have to buy, and the price would rocket. The govt NEEDS private landlords to take the risk of renting to those who are uncreditworthy for a mortgage to buy. 

That is what Council Housing was originally built for. Once the Governement blocked the building of further council houses (using the money from the sale under Right to Buy) the housing shortage became inevitable.

 

I also think you may be a little behind the times with your comment "...the price would rocket....", the price of buying has rocketted just to keep you up to date;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Athy said:

:P

Yes indeed, expressing different opinions, or "discussion" as it is also known, is not only allowed but actively encouraged here. On what figures do you base your assertions?

I'm pleased to see that I have the "wow" factor. 

 

Typical response from the old fart brigade on here again.

 

What ever.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave Payne said:

 

Typical response from the old fart brigade on here again.

 

What ever.

As I'm not a member of that particular brigade, I shall have to take your word for it. Did you not feel able to answer my question?

But I'm pleased that you agree with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.