UK migration crackdown: ‘No social housing for newcomers’

Originally posted by cheebie23
reply to post by Flavian

 

I am befuddled at this extra bedroom tax. In the US there is no such thing. I cannot believe people need to pay just for having an empty room!

People also have to pay taxes to have a TV in their homes and pay taxes to get their pie warmed up in a microwave from a sandwich shop in UK aswel.

Anyway!

The real issue is not with the immigrants or how much the benefits system can churn out to keep everyone happy. The real problem lies with the rich.

Big businesses in UK love cheap hard working labour who are majority owned by the 'whites'. Why should these businesses pay a white man/woman a good wage with extended holidays and weekends off when an Indian who has just landed in UK is ready to work the whole year without anytime off on bare minimum wage? Not taking the side of immigrants but this is exactly how big businesses think in UK. And as we already know big businesses and banks fund politics which in turn leads to policies which are more favorable to them. Which is why politicians from the 3 main parties ignore the immigration issue. But the power of this money is so much that it would even corrupt UKIP or any White nationalist party that gets into power forcing them to dilute their core policies. Prime example, who would have thought Libs would bow down to Cons policies and tag along as muppets?

So in simple words it's the rich white man screwing over the poor white man for money.

This thread is a prime example where the rich keep the poor busy quarreling amongst each other with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
But of the 2 million net migrants to the UK from the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, just 13,000 people have claimed jobseeker's allowance (JSA). This figure was not disputed by No 10.

Why should gov give ANY immigrants ANY hand-outs using UK taxpayer money? How is it right that gov deny JSA to UK citizens if they haven't worked in preceeding 2years, ignoring that they might have worked and paid their dues all their life previous to this, but give it to immigrants as soon as they get here without question?

Originally posted by plube
Tell you what...when get off yor high horse and realize that most of the uk population are immgrants...your mostly vikings....after the romans left......and for that matter maybe the country should be given back to the celts.

That's not even remotely true..

Genetic studies have shown that the influx of Romans, Saxons, Angles, Vikings, Normans and whomever was always quite small in relation to the general population. As a result, some 69% of us are descendents of the original isles.

FYI, the Celts migrated here too only a few centuries prior to the Roman invasions.

reply to post by plube


Christ, you really don;t have a clue about anything at all, do you?

The Royals aren't German, only bigoted idiots believe that.

Originally posted by cheebie23
reply to post by Flavian

 

I am befuddled at this extra bedroom tax. In the US there is no such thing. I cannot believe people need to pay just for having an empty room!

They don;t have to pay anything and if you took the time to understand what this "bedroom tax" (it is no such thing) is you'd understand.

Here, people on no/low incomes can have their housing wholly or partly funded by the State. If you rent privately (ie, don't use social housing) you've had your housing benefit adjusted for years if you had one extra bedroom than you actually required. All they have done is extend this provision to those in social housing and it is not a tax or anything they have to pay, they just have their housing benefit reduced as a result.

Why, as a taxpayer, should I fund people to have a larger house than they need, especially when I could actually do with an extra bedroom myself but can't afford the rent, owing partly to the high taxes I pay? No one is going to give me any money to pay my rent, after all. Its supposed to be a safety net to allow you to keep your home while your down on your luck, but many here see it as free housing.

I think as a US citizen, you'd be more shocked people can have the state pay their rent!

reply to post by stumason


The fact is these people are USED to having an extra bedroom. Now to suddenly tax people for it or as you said reduce their benefits, it is a big change and it isnt a nice change for many.

Now the issue is, its true people who dont need the extra bedroom shouldnt be given it due to the fact that the immigration is now rocketing numbers up population wise. So we really dont have space in the UK like we used to.

But to be shocked that people are " shocked" that this change is taken place is just silly.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


1.67? I see you read that straight off the wiki page!

The TFR for British residents also varies by country of birth. In England and Wales in 1996, people born in the UK had a TFR of 1.67, India 2.21 and Pakistan and Bangladesh 4.90, for example.[23]

en.wikipedia.org...

Shame it's from 1996!

The actual birth rate for "white British" is around 1.91, just slightly below the replacement rate. Also, for those scared we're going to be out bred, immigrant populations usually settle into a similiar birth rate to the native population on the second generation. First generation migrants, particularly from SE Asia, usually have high birth rates owing to cultural practices, the second generation rarely follow this pattern.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
But of the 2 million net migrants to the UK from the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, just 13,000 people have claimed jobseeker's allowance (JSA). This figure was not disputed by No 10.

Wow.. look how few look for jobs. Article herewww.guardian.co.uk...

The problem is that when 2 million new people arrive here there aren't suddenly 2 million more jobs for them.

Take the example of a well known underwear manufacturer near me. It is very seasonal work and the 400 or so jobs in the factory have always been filled by local workers.

Now however almost everyone in the factory is Polish.

They are not directly employed by the factory, they are employed through a middleman, a gangmaster for want of a better term, so they have no employment rights whatsoever.

They factory pay minimum wage, but since it goes to the middleman & he pays them it's doubtful that the workers get anywhere near minimum wage.

Since the workers earn so little they don't pay much (if anything) in NI or other taxes, whereas the better paid local workers did.

In the meantime the local people who used to work there haven't miraculously found 400 new jobs, most of them are instead claiming benefits.

So you've gone from a position where previously 400 people paid taxes into the system and paid their own way, and now almost no taxes are paid into the system but there are 400 people claiming benefits who weren't before.

On top of that there are now 800 people using the local services, education system, NHS, and needing housing, but now none of them are actually paying for it, meaning the rest of us have to, which reduces the quality of services for all of them while pushing up the cost of living for everyone at the same time.

It doesn't do the immigrants any good, the local people any good, or the economy any good.

The only person who benefits is the owner of the factory who gets cheap workers and makes more money.

We used to send our factories to other countries for the cheaper labour, now instead they bring the workers here and let the rest of us foot the bill for them.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


To be honest, I couldn't give two hoots if they are "used" to it. The Government could have been giving out gold plated Bugatti's and we could all "get used" to that....

Bottom line is, they either take the hit on the benefit, downsize or get a lodger. Money doesn't grow on trees and the good times are over, it's time for everyone to face up to the fact. Like I said earlier in the thread, not a single sausage around here or in the media spoke up with indignation when us "middle earners" got financially raped 2 years ago, but god forbid those who get their bills paid for them by us taxpayers ever have to make any sacrifices.

Oh, another thing, before people assume I am some toff looking down on the great unwashed, I've done my time on the bottom of the pile but I worked my socks off and made something out of myself. I really object then having the Governments hand so far in my pocket they can touch my junk, just so others can get things for free. Like I said, its a safety net not a lifestyle.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by FreedomEntered

 

To be honest, I couldn't give two hoots if they are "used" to it. The Government could have been giving out gold plated Bugatti's and we could all "get used" to that....

Bottom line is, they either take the hit on the benefit, downsize or get a lodger. Money doesn't grow on trees and the good times are over, it's time for everyone to face up to the fact. Like I said earlier in the thread, not a single sausage around here or in the media spoke up with indignation when us "middle earners" got financially raped 2 years ago, but god forbid those who get their bills paid for them by us taxpayers ever have to make any sacrifices.

Oh, another thing, before people assume I am some toff looking down on the great unwashed, I've done my time on the bottom of the pile but I worked my socks off and made something out of myself. I really object then having the Governments hand so far in my pocket they can touch my junk, just so others can get things for free. Like I said, its a safety net not a lifestyle.

Bang on mate!

There's no such thing as a free lunch, someone has to pay and sadly it's us that are footing the bill for other peoples lifestyles.

reply to post by stumason


If you are renting taking a lodger usually requires the permission of your landlord which is not guaranteed should people get over that hurdle, any money they get off the lodger will be taken off their benefits. So its impossible to make up any shortfall in housing benefit by taking in lodgers.
it doesn't matter whether you're a toff or not. Your posts prove you're a deeply flawed individual with a tenuous grasp on the issue you are defending so ineptly.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse

 

1.67? I see you read that straight off the wiki page!

The TFR for British residents also varies by country of birth. In England and Wales in 1996, people born in the UK had a TFR of 1.67, India 2.21 and Pakistan and Bangladesh 4.90, for example.[23]

en.wikipedia.org...

Shame it's from 1996!

The actual birth rate for "white British" is around 1.91, just slightly below the replacement rate. Also, for those scared we're going to be out bred, immigrant populations usually settle into a similiar birth rate to the native population on the second generation. First generation migrants, particularly from SE Asia, usually have high birth rates owing to cultural practices, the second generation rarely follow this pattern.

around 1.91? Where did you get that from? Same place where they get the 25 year immigration backlog? Nearly 50 percent of residents of london were not born there. Alarm bells alarm bells and thats just those that filled in the census. Dont you see any corelation between immigration and deteriating public services and social cohesion?

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
Around 1.91? Where did you get that from?

Here..A paper by a Professor from Oxford... Granted, it is from 2009, but it the most recent, independent figures I could find at short notice.

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
Nearly 50 percent of residents of london were not born there. Alarm bells alarm bells and thats just those that filled in the census. Dont you see any corelation between immigration and deteriating public services and social cohesion?

London isn't the UK, in fact it is a world apart. There was in fact an article on the BBC yesterday discussing whether the rest of the UK would be better of without London.

Originally posted by SprocketUK
If you are renting taking a lodger usually requires the permission of your landlord which is not guaranteed should people get over that hurdle, any money they get off the lodger will be taken off their benefits. So its impossible to make up any shortfall in housing benefit by taking in lodgers.

And? Then they should either get the permission, which in my experience is quite easy - I've added housemates quite simply in the past - or suck up the difference. And quite right too that if they are coining an extra £400 a month renting out the room that should be classed as an income so their benefits are reduced, they'd still be better off at the end of it. What is so wrong with people earning their own money and not relying on the state?

Originally posted by SprocketUK
it doesn't matter whether you're a toff or not. Your posts prove you're a deeply flawed individual with a tenuous grasp on the issue you are defending so ineptly.

Deeply flawed? Hahahaha, ok! I'd hardly say I am defending "ineptly", but rather I simply have a different point of view to you and we don't agree. I could say your quite ineptly failing to provide a reason as to why people should be continuously funded by the taxpayer. Surely people should strive to better themselves and if that means taking in a lodger, earning some extra money and having benefits reduced further is better for them and better for the taxpayer?

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by SprocketUK
If you are renting taking a lodger usually requires the permission of your landlord which is not guaranteed should people get over that hurdle, any money they get off the lodger will be taken off their benefits. So its impossible to make up any shortfall in housing benefit by taking in lodgers.

And? Then they should either get the permission, which in my experience is quite easy - I've added housemates quite simply in the past - or suck up the difference. And quite right too that if they are coining an extra £400 a month renting out the room that should be classed as an income so their benefits are reduced, they'd still be better off at the end of it. What is so wrong with people earning their own money and not relying on the state?

Originally posted by SprocketUK
it doesn't matter whether you're a toff or not. Your posts prove you're a deeply flawed individual with a tenuous grasp on the issue you are defending so ineptly.

Deeply flawed? Hahahaha, ok! I'd hardly say I am defending "ineptly", but rather I simply have a different point of view to you and we don't agree. I could say your quite ineptly failing to provide a reason as to why people should be continuously funded by the taxpayer. Surely people should strive to better themselves and if that means taking in a lodger, earning some extra money and having benefits reduced further is better for them and better for the taxpayer?

Most tenancy agreements prohibit subletting unless you specify that at the outset.
If you get 400 quid a month for your spare room then you can kiss 400 quids worth of benefits goodbye. Possibly more as certain benefits trigger things like council tax rebates, free school meals etc. But then I expect you know all this and are doing the same lame dance as the other obfuscators when it comes to defending the indefensible I.e. levying charges on those least able to pay whilst knocking tax off for the rich and allowing people to leach vast sums from the public purse in the form of pfpi and their offspring.

No matter how you dress it up, this bedroom tax will only hurt the poor. It won't leave them better off or as well off. No matter what they do, it'll cost them something.

Who'll benefit? Not me. I'll still pay all those taxes, I'll still pay my mortgage. I'll still work long hours every day and not have a holiday.

reply to post by stumason

London isn't the UK, in fact it is a world apart. There was in fact an article on the BBC yesterday discussing whether the rest of the UK would be better of without London.

And very interesting it was stu.

It was noticeable that no-one denied the London centric nature of UK politics / business etc and that the rest of the country suffers because of it.

It's what I was referring to in this post here; www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apologies for straying off topic.

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
More hot air by the Government..Most, if not all immigrants go for private lets. the waiting list for decent social housing up here can be 5-7 years....More useless wind and P1$$ from caMORON..

yes, usually a member of their own families let,they then claim housing benefit and the tax payer pays for an immigrants family mortgage. It goes on and on. Pregnant women come here to have babies,get british citizenship, and if they have a girl it is then wisked home to be married off at 10 years old , just to get the husband british citizenship. How neat.

Don't forget the rest of the stuff they are permitted to take advantage of for themselves and their families, that the UK taxpayer funds - education for their kids, medical and hospital care, prescriptions, translators/interpreters, all free. Free for them anyway.

UK now resembles a refugee island with all the destitute homeless foreigners here.

Can't wait to hear what Cameron tries to con us with in his next feeble attempt to win popularity. He should've been a comedian, the goon.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by FreedomEntered

 

To be honest, I couldn't give two hoots if they are "used" to it. The Government could have been giving out gold plated Bugatti's and we could all "get used" to that....

Bottom line is, they either take the hit on the benefit, downsize or get a lodger. Money doesn't grow on trees and the good times are over, it's time for everyone to face up to the fact. Like I said earlier in the thread, not a single sausage around here or in the media spoke up with indignation when us "middle earners" got financially raped 2 years ago, but god forbid those who get their bills paid for them by us taxpayers ever have to make any sacrifices.

Oh, another thing, before people assume I am some toff looking down on the great unwashed, I've done my time on the bottom of the pile but I worked my socks off and made something out of myself. I really object then having the Governments hand so far in my pocket they can touch my junk, just so others can get things for free. Like I said, its a safety net not a lifestyle.

Bottom line is we are now paying for the mistakes and mismanagement of the banking system. A banking system that was de-regulated by the Conservative only for New Labour to ignore the calls for further regulation, because let's be honest the financial policies of subsequent governments since Thatcher's premiership have been dictated by The City. A one size fits all, which in reality doesn't fit anyone except the The City.

So, sure we know there are people that have abused the system, but when I worked within the Department of Employment, this was estimated at around 5% of claimants. What we have to remember is that there isn't enough properties available for people to all downsize and reduce the welfare bill at the same time. It's a con and to deny this, well, that's pure ignorance.

Benefit fraud is estimated to cost this country £2billion per year - tax evasion and tax avoidance is estimated to cost this country approximately £70billion per year.

Wonder why the government focuses on benefit fraud and demonising those receiving benefits?

Classic deflection tactics.

reply to post by Freeborn


And you can bet the people commiting most of that benefit fraud are the same people who commit the tax fraud/evasion.

The majority of real criminals in this country are untouchable because the system is so corrupt, and those of us who are in genuine need, or those of us who work hard and play fair and by the rules, are the ones screwed hardest. And those screwed hardest of all are those least able to fight back and do anything about it.

Until it actually happens, I will never stop saying that this government and all of its sponsors need eradicating from the face of this planet, not just in the UK but world wide. I live in hope that it will happen in my lifetime but I very much doubt it.