UK migration crackdown: ‘No social housing for newcomers’

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by ObservingYou

 

Wow you are a girl? funny I always imagined you as a biker

Now I will just have to imagine you as a Girl biker

(hot one of course

)

BoyMonkey - You know who I am already aha. I'll inbox you.

The mascualine profile was to keep a low profile

(Oop's flood control in effect - not sure why I've only sent one message, hardly a flood aha)

reply to post by doobydoll


Nobody is being forced to pay anything - this is a reduction in benefits, not a tax on money they already have.

Nice try at spin, but it won't fly.

Originally posted by ObservingYou

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by ObservingYou

 

This thread sounds quite racist shame on you guys and girls for being so anti-other ethnicities. That sucks. But the truth is the benefit system is rubbish, and fails those who need it most at times.

And this needs to change, those with drink/drug habits for example, are considered to have a disability. Now I ask you HOW is addiction a disability? We have this absurd culture that spoils those who dont frankly deserve it at times.

edit on 25-3-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)

You've hit another nail on the head. Drug/Alchohol addicts should be stripped of their benefits also...If it leads to crime, let em do the time!

Of course addiction is a disability. Its not normal to want to take X,Y & Z. These people need to be helped but yes... we shouldn't be funding them to feed there addictions.

Originally posted by Logos23
I have no problem's with reducing benefit for those who genuinely don't need an extra bedroom and are given a viable smaller alternative that they don't take up on...apart from that, it is just another benefit cut on the poorest.

See, I get that this has hit a nerve because it hits the "poorest", but what "the poor" who are up in arms about this now don't realise is that the rest of us have already taken huge cuts and have done for some years.

in 2011, we lost our working tax credits - I earn to much apparently. That was £130 a month gone, or £1560 a year. I've also had my NI increased and, if my missus gets the Customer Service job (which only pays £15k) she is going for, we will also lose a chunk of our Child benefit to the tune of around £60 a month (£720) a year simply because we will then be over the £50k threshold, which no matter what you might think, isn't a great deal of money when we also have to pay £1000 a month in rent (with no help), £130 a month in Council Tax (with no help) and the high taxation I already am subjected to (I lose close to £1000 month in tax).

No one protested on our behalf over those cuts, nor did I feel the need to protest because we have all had to tighten our belts as the country is short on cash. What those at the lower end of the spectrum don't realise is that they have been shielded from the worst of it by us "middle earners" who did so without complaint.

Now it is time to trim the fat down there and, I am sorry, but I find it hard to sympathise with the loss of £14 a week because their house is too big, when I pay £1000 a month for a 3 bed house when I really need a 4 bed, but no one is going to give me money to help pay the £1500 a month rent required for such a house....

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Logos23
I have no problem's with reducing benefit for those who genuinely don't need an extra bedroom and are given a viable smaller alternative that they don't take up on...apart from that, it is just another benefit cut on the poorest.

See, I get that this has hit a nerve because it hits the "poorest", but what "the poor" who are up in arms about this now don't realise is that the rest of us have already taken huge cuts and have done for some years.

in 2011, we lost our working tax credits - I earn to much apparently. That was £130 a month gone, or £1560 a year. I've also had my NI increased and, if my missus gets the Customer Service job (which only pays £15k) she is going for, we will also lose a chunk of our Child benefit to the tune of around £60 a month (£720) a year simply because we will then be over the £50k threshold, which no matter what you might think, isn't a great deal of money when we also have to pay £1000 a month in rent (with no help), £130 a month in Council Tax (with no help) and the high taxation I already am subjected to (I lose close to £1000 month in tax).

No one protested on our behalf over those cuts, nor did I feel the need to protest because we have all had to tighten our belts as the country is short on cash. What those at the lower end of the spectrum don't realise is that they have been shielded from the worst of it by us "middle earners" who did so without complaint.

Now it is time to trim the fat down there and, I am sorry, but I find it hard to sympathise with the loss of £14 a week because their house is too big, when I pay £1000 a month for a 3 bed house when I really need a 4 bed, but no one is going to give me money to help pay the £1500 a month rent required for such a house....

Damn I feel for you, how are you paying so much though? I pay around £700 for a mortgage, 3 bed detached which i thought was a lot.

I great way to help people like you I feel would be through free childcare which I guess you spend huge chunks of your wage on? They would literally be saving families thousands with extended nursery type services in schools.

reply to post by tdk84


Yep, the irony is a mortgage for the house I have would cost around £700-800 a month, but owing to the high house prices and the need for a 10% deposit (or even 5%) means I would have to save close to £20k to even consider buying, but when I am getting milked left and right, I can only save £100 a month, if that.. It would take me 20 years to save for a house, then another 30 years to pay it off.. I don't think I will live long enough to actually own my own home...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by tdk84

 

Yep, the irony is a mortgage for the house I have would cost around £700-800 a month, but owing to the high house prices and the need for a 10% deposit (or even 5%) means I would have to save close to £20k to even consider buying, but when I am getting milked left and right, I can only save £100 a month, if that.. It would take me 20 years to save for a house, then another 30 years to pay it off.. I don't think I will live long enough to actually own my own home...

Again I feel for you, you are in the exact same position I was in. I bought my first house in December which needed a 10% deposit. I simply wouldn't of been able too if it was for super aunt who came to the rescue with a family loan & moving back in with the parents for 2 years. That was an experience!

Yet another issue that needs resolving... but like freeborn said they could be building more council housing supply jobs and more reasonably priced housing.

I always wonder about these over stocked prisons, how they could be put to work to offer cheap solutions but I guess it would crash certain economies. I shudder at the thought of being in negative equity.

reply to post by tdk84

and also add there has to be something done in regards to the prioritisation process with young adults, people having kids to get housing etc. Its ridiculous. I'm almost 30 and would love to have kids, but haven't, because until recently I know I simple cant afford too.

The thing is, in a caring and progressive society we should be able to offer young families a bit of a head start by providing cheap and affordable housing.
The fact that this country has actually gone backwards in this regard over the last 30 or so years is absolutely criminal.

People having kids to get housing is a reflection of the change in attitudes in general within our society - would these people have children if there was sufficient cheap and affordable housing? - I honestly don't know.

..... like the giant dept people got themselves into that aided in recent economic problems.

But it's understandable why people got themselves into so much debt - people were getting inundated with credit offers, large overdarfts etc and I certainly can't recall anyone, regardless of political affiliation, advising not to take people up on these offers.
And bear in mind that the largest debt nearly everyone get's into is their mortgage - and again we are back to the over-inflated housing market due to the lack of council housing.


And bankers and investors made vast amounts of money out of the ordinary man in the street doing so - and when it went pear shaped it was the ordinary Joe who bailed them out and it's the same guy who is suffering most from these 'austerity cuts'.
Personally I'm sick to the stomach of the poor, needy, vulnerable and just plain old ordinary being demonised and victimised.
The vast majority of people on benefits are not layabout, scrounging, drug addled alcoholics but, for any number of reasons, just simply find themselves in the situation that they are in.

And yes, I know these 'cuts' are beginning to bite the 'working man' now and that is equally wrong.

What this country needs is investment in it's people and infrastructure, proper and effective management and most importantly real jobs that pay real wages that enable people to spend cash.

These cuts are doing nothing but cause a great deal of suffering and a seemingly non-stop amount of finger pointing, bickering and at times downright hatefullness towards each other whilst those who really deserve our anger and contempt sit back and revel in our arguing whilst cointing their ever increasing personal fortunes which they point blank refuse to re-invest in this country.

It annoys me when people in social/council housing are bleating about rules which have always affected me as a private renter. My son has stayed with me 3/4 nights per week since I split from his mother 13 years ago (we're best friends now but that's another story), anyway, I've always had to have a 2 bedroomed place so he had a normal home environment while with me.
His mother gets the child benefit so she is legally classed as the primary carer and if I am ever out of work the housing benefit will only pay the local rate for a one bedroomed home. Our shared parenting arrangement makes no difference to my application.
If I made a claim tomorrow, this would leave a shortfall of £300 per month for me to find out of thin air.
This has always been the case for private renters who are also stung with ridiculously high rents for inferior properties compared to the subsidised homes in the council sector.

In the last 13 years I have claimed benefits for a total period of perhaps 2 months in bursts of the odd week or two every couple of years. I have done all sorts of crappy agency jobs as in-between work just to keep my 2 bedroomed place for me and my son, I've allowed myself to be exploited at times in 12-15 hour shifts which worked out at an hourly rate lower than the minimum wage, just because that rubbish job ended up being worth more than I could get in benefits.

I have often been bitter and jealous when I see smug people I know who pay half the rent I do in superior accommodation provided by my taxes, and then bleating that the council have not been around to mow their lawns. I kid you not, they actually get their lawns mowed down here in the social housing estates!

There are of course genuine cases out there, but no-one seems to give a toss about the hidden poverty and difficulties which working people in private rented homes are suffering in their millions. Perhaps it's because we don't go whinging at the town hall with a support worker crying about how 'vulnerable' we are, expecting the state to do everything for them.

Call me harsh, but tough luck social/council renters, you've had it easy for decades and if you live in a house funded by the state which is too big for you, just move into a smaller one in the private sector and see how difficult life really is. Half of them haven't a clue how lucky they are and couldn't cope with the challenges of personal responsibility required to hold your life together without the crutch of welfare to cling to.

[/rant]

reply to post by stumason


You are better off renting, believe you me.

The upkeep of owning a property is a constant and massive drain on your pocket.

My parents always bought homes but always advised me against doing so; and the expense of maintenance was the key issue.

We've been sold this idea that we can all become little landowners.

What they don't tell you is you need a lot of moolah to maintain your little plot of land.

It's a pain when you need to move to another property, and the days when you could make a mint from the sale of your home are ebbing away.

After decades of the poverty trap,yes trap. People still think people are living it up on 100 pound a fortnight. Foolish foolish people.
At one time people had secured tenacys,what are they you might ask. These are rules fought for by working class people so landlords could not increase rents and evict willy nilly. WE COULD FIX THE ECONOMY IN ONE SWOOP,by reversing the increase in social rents. The welfare bill would be cut by a third,bang.
But the rich landlords are back, the social housing stock has been given away from councils to housing associations and the bedroom tax is the result. Why should anyone give up their family home of 50years?

We already have foodbanks for these so called scroungers and the workhouse is next.
The immigrants are at the mercy of these landlords and are being sardinrd into unfit housing. The bedroom tax is etnic cleansing. Pay or give up your house for a large immigrant family. The kind of family that deserve it.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Swings and roundabouts really... Like I said, the £1000 a month I am paying is something like £300 a month above what a comparable mortgage would cost, so I am paying £3600 a year over and above what a mortgage would cost.. At least if I owned my home, I could have a modicum of choice whether to maintain it properly and have more cash in my back pocket, but I am now trapped privately renting with no hope of ever getting a deposit together..

Oh, I just found out my missus buggered up her job interview, so at least we won't be losing our Child Benefit... I just have to continue to support my family on my own wages and the prospect of owning a home, or even having a holiday, is out of the window...

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
After decades of the poverty trap,yes trap. People still think people are living it up on 100 pound a fortnight. Foolish foolish people.
At one time people had secured tenacys,what are they you might ask. These are rules fought for by working class people so landlords could not increase rents and evict willy nilly. WE COULD FIX THE ECONOMY IN ONE SWOOP,by reversing the increase in social rents. The welfare bill would be cut by a third,bang.
But the rich landlords are back, the social housing stock has been given away from councils to housing associations and the bedroom tax is the result. Why should anyone give up their family home of 50years?

We already have foodbanks for these so called scroungers and the workhouse is next.
The immigrants are at the mercy of these landlords and are being sardinrd into unfit housing. The bedroom tax is etnic cleansing. Pay or give up your house for a large immigrant family. The kind of family that deserve it.

I disagree. The social/council tenants pay below market value rents in homes subsidised by the people who pay taxes. The 1 person/1 room rule has always been in place for people who claim housing benefit in the private rented sector, this legislation change is just making the system the same for all tenants. It is not a tax, a tax is money taken from people who pay in.

Regardless, even after the rule change, social/council tenants are still in a vastly superior financial position than people in the private sector. With some of the ridiculously low rents I know some of my friends pay they could cover it from a part time job, stop the bleating that these people are so hard done by, you haven't a clue what life is like in the private sector - much harder than the situation found in the embrace of the welfare state.

reply to post by grainofsand
so why dont you quit your job?your post is the most absurd i have seen on a.t.s
It was blair/labour who increased social rents to 80percent private,housing benefit has rocketed much more than the. The minimum wage. A family working on the minimum wage can not afford the new social rents,what are they supposed to do? Let them eat cake?

Originally posted by ObservingYou

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by pikestaff
What I find strange is the rumor I was told by a Brit friend of mine about social housing tenants will shortly have to pay $35.00 tax a month on empty bedrooms?

I am losing the plot with this one...

IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!! IT IS REDUCTION IN HOUSING BENEFIT FOR THOSE IN RECEIPT OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO PAY THEIR RENT WHO HAVE AN EXTRA BEDROOM!

WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYER FUND PEOPLE TO HAVE HOUSES BIGGER THAN THEY NEED WHEN THOSE WHO DO PAY FOR THEIR HOUSING HAVE TROUBLE AFFORDING IT?

edit on 25/3/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

If people are being FORCED to pay it, then it is a tax on poor people!

edit on 25-3-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

But they are not "being forced to pay it"...They are just being paid less.

Makes me laugh when benefit people act like they own other peoples tax aha.

Same difference. The bedroom tax will have to be paid with their allowance, a set minimal amount which our gov has stipulated and provides an individual with BASIC LIVING NEEDS. The extra rent will have to be paid out of that. So yes, they ARE being forced further into poverty. So now gov is now ensuring poor folk don't even have basic needs. Well done Cameron you goon!

How come people go on and on about what poor people get in benefits, but say NAFF ALL about rich rolling-in-wealth MP's who get free 2nd homes in the best and most expensive areas they can possibly find, and fill their bank accounts with taxpayer money even though they don't need it? Why should MP's get all that for nothing when they have personal fortunes? Why aren't you insisting they finance a 2nd home with their own money? Why aren't you insisting they pay for their own meals instead of subsidised cuisine dining? Why aren't you insisting they pay all their own work expenses instead of raiding gov coffers every year? If you or I have any money in the bank we can't claim ANYTHING, why should they?

Don't forget that the majority of people claiming housing benefits ARE working - so yes, this is another tax on those who can least afford it.

Our gov is forcing poor people to share their homes with strangers, in order to free up housing to accommodate hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are flowing through our borders homeless and destitute.

I think it's safe to say that Cameron and his oafs can kiss goodbye to No.10 Downing Street come next election. And good bloody riddance!

reply to post by stumason

Because it may be the only accommodation available. The bedroom tax is just plain mean and the politics of envy. Stealing off Peter to pay Paul!!

reply to post by doobydoll


There goes my hero,rockon dooby.

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by grainofsand

 

so why dont you quit your job?your post is the most absurd i have seen on a.t.s
It was blair/labour who increased social rents to 80percent private,housing benefit has rocketed much more than the. The minimum wage. A family working on the minimum wage can not afford the new social rents,what are they supposed to do? Let them eat cake?

Your question is a classic example of the attitude so tragically found in our entitlement society these days.
I work because I like to smile at myself in the mirror and know that my hard work has covered the things I have, not the hard work of other tax payers.
I also work and have carried out many crappy 'in-between' jobs for the reasons I previously stated - I live in a private sector rented property and the existing rules will not cover a 2 bedroom place for me and my son as he is with me 3/4 nights per week and as his mother gets the child benefit his bedroom is not funded by housing benefit. I repeat, if I claim benefit there will be a shortfall of £300 per month in rent which would not be covered by benefit. This is the situation for millions of us in the private sector and if I paid the pittance in rent that social/council landlords charge I could cut my hours right down.

I challenge your assertion that minimum wage will not cover social/council rents, that is blatantly wrong and I hope you are just ill-informed and not making it up to back your argument. If you really want I'll pull some rent prices up from some housing associations to prove you wrong, but please do not force my hand, it is a waste of my time. How do you think minimum wage workers afford the rents in the private sector which are much much higher? Stop with the inaccurate claims please, it is not helpful to the debate.

reply to post by ispyed


It's not the only accommodation available though - there are plenty of homes to rent. if someone on housing benefit needs to downsize to avoid this benefit reduction, then you can get assistance to do so if you have any trouble.

Again, most people whining about this seem to ignore the fact that those in private rented accommodation but in receipt of housing benefit have had this 1 person, 1 room rule for decades. This is just an equalisation, not penalisation.

I'll have a grain of sympathy for these poor saps with bigger houses than they need when someone gives me some money to get a bigger house, but until that time comes I am afraid I won't shed a tear, but instead welcome them into the real world where the rest of us live.

reply to post by grainofsand

The social/council tenants pay below market value rents in homes subsidised by the people who pay taxes.

The point you may be missing is that private rents are so high because there is insufficient council housing thus allowing landlords to charge over-inflated rents.
Reducing the number of people seeking private accomodation will see a decrease in rents - simple supply and demand.