• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Benefits Cap

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by The Spartan View Post
    To a point probably but not the the extent that a lot of people get and there are plenty of hoops to jump through where they can just say no!

    Whereas if you're on benefits and not working and have kids you get:
    A house rent free
    Don't have to pay council tax
    Don't have to pay water rates
    Get family allowance
    Child benefit and other benefits like winter fuel allowance etc

    You are showing a certain level of ignorance there - "family allowance" hasn't existed for years, everyone gets it (benefits or not) and it's called Child Benefit. This is simple basic stuff - if you don't know that, your contribution doesn't count for much.

    Comment


      #42
      If you started now it would take approx 25 years (1 generation) to change what we currently have.

      There are too many kids born into families which are now 3rd/4th generation non workers.

      Until we see them effectively begging on the streets and see their kids dying through malnutrition because no one is willing to pay for them to sit and do fu<k all but breed n eat chips nothing will change.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by d000hg View Post
        It used to be that way, not any more. I don't know why, as the owner of a house let out to DSS tenants I'd prefer the old way
        Yes, the pockets of private landlords is where most of the state benefits end up. Housing benefit needs to be renamed Landlord benefit, those of you getting your knickers in a twist at the feckless scroungers on the dole are unfortunately missing the point, the real scroungers are the landlords. Unfortunately the motivation to really tackle the issue of benefits will not exist whilst our local and national politicians are up to their neck in buy to let 'investments'.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by original PM View Post
          If you started now it would take approx 25 years (1 generation) to change what we currently have.

          There are too many kids born into families which are now 3rd/4th generation non workers.

          Until we see them effectively begging on the streets and see their kids dying through malnutrition because no one is willing to pay for them to sit and do fu<k all but breed n eat chips nothing will change.
          So, did you get to choose your parents?

          Tip: Think, then write comment, then think, then press 'post'.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by bingobob View Post
            Yes, the pockets of private landlords is where most of the state benefits end up. Housing benefit needs to be renamed Landlord benefit, those of you getting your knickers in a twist at the feckless scroungers on the dole are unfortunately missing the point, the real scroungers are the landlords.
            If the government wants to buy my house to provide housing then that's fine with me.
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by d000hg View Post
              If the government wants to buy my house to provide housing then that's fine with me.
              They don't need to do that, thay just need to cut your landlord benefit by 50%. Problem solved.

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                If the government wants to buy my house to provide housing then that's fine with me.
                Or if the govt wants to return to building social housing (council houses as we used to call them) and not allowing "right to buy", and managing the housing stock for the feckless, that's fine by me also.

                Otherwise pay private landlords to house them or let them live on the streets.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by bingobob View Post
                  They don't need to do that, thay just need to cut your landlord benefit by 50%. Problem solved.

                  Landlords rent accommodation at the prevailing rates, they are regulated and monitored (possibly not enough) but they aren't a charity, if you can find it cheaper elsewhere then rent it, if you can't move somewhere cheaper and commute. If you aren't working you don't need to commute

                  I live 30 minute commute from the office partially because I can't afford the houses in a nice area closer, so do most of my peers, some however live 2-3 hours away. Its not much of a stretch for me but then I moved 1.5 hours commute from where I was brought up so I was closer to work 20 years ago.

                  Apparently landlords are switching back to private rentals now because the bribes to take DSS tenants have been withdrawn (I wonder why they were being paid in the first place when there is an open market? Maybe market forces meant a premium had to be paid because of the risk). Having seen how renting to DSS tenants has affected my relatives some tenants are actually great but some are complete scum and they cause the rents to go up.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by vetran View Post
                    Landlords rent accommodation at the prevailing rates, they are regulated and monitored (possibly not enough) but they aren't a charity, if you can find it cheaper elsewhere then rent it, if you can't move somewhere cheaper and commute. If you aren't working you don't need to commute
                    Over 50% of the money that ends up in the pockets of private landlords comes from the state. It is the state that dictate the level of private rent, it is unfortunately not free market forces. This is something that is largely ignored by both politicians and the media, on account of the level of their own interest in keeping rents high. If you want to know how out of hand the situation is you can make a freedom of information request to your local council to find out much is paid out in rent by the state in your area. I guarantee you'll be shocked.

                    It's only landlords that benefit from housing benefit not tenants.

                    Whilst figures of 26k, 30k or even 40k a year in benefits are shocking, most people on benfits (even on the higher levels) will be skint and will live hand to mouth, day to day. Those claiming benefits are effectively just middle men, hiding the real allocation of resources from the state to the wealthy.

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Benefits should be capped for life - so when youre born you get a Benefits Overdraft facility of lets say 20k. Housing benefit etc would be paid from this (not healthcare)
                      If you work you increase the overdraft facility, if you're out of work and drawing benefits, this money eats into your overdraft. Once you hit max overdraft limit, thats it, game over, no more money.. move out and go live in some kind of giant bunkbed filled hostal, becasue youve spunked your entire life's benefit allowance and the tax payer wont pay you anymore!!

                      Maybe a bit harsh, but giving people a finite limit to work with, i think would make them realise they cant get free money forever!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X