Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK migration crackdown: ‘No social housing for newcomers’

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

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.
i challenge you,social rents are now 80percent of private rent, you acknowledge you could not afford where you are on benefits so how could someone on the minimum wage? Stop your jibber jabber. Dont forget to include council tax.




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
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.

True, I'll agree there, I'm just challenging the breaking hearts from the social/council sector who make out that life is so hard for them now having to face rules we've always had in the private sector.
Even after the rule change social/council tenants will still be vastly better off than private tenants.
Oh, and no-one is forced to pay this shortfall in benefit for excess rooms which they do not 'need', anyone of them can find a smaller place outside of the social sector, but then they'd be even worse off than they would by covering the shortfall. It's much harder outside of the embrace of the welfare state and some people need to realise this.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 





How do you think minimum wage workers afford the rents in the private sector which are much much higher?

They get housing benefit, that's how. Otherwise there would be a hell of a lot of minimum-wage earners out on the streets.

If landlords weren't so greedy with their high rents, there wouldn't be as much paid out in housing benefits. People just want somewhere to live for goodness sake, what's wrong with you?
edit on 25-3-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Here's a thought, why don't regular UK citizens just pick up and leave and move, to say oh I don't know, Canada or Australia? Tons of land. Some places, as in the States, they give it away just to get people in there. So you brits are going to let the chinese move into Canada while the whole lot of you fight for cheap, cramped housing on that sinking island. Unbelievable. Its disgusting how small the population size is for Canada considering its size.

Give the UK government what it wants, move in all the foreigners you can while the rest of you move out. I say this because you guys are obviously not about to do anything else. No riots, no protesting, no voting the bums out of office. So leave. Let them eat cake while they rule an island of foreigners who will turn on them when they feel in the majority.

Hell, come to Texas, we need more english speaking folks here.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 

Easy:

1 bedroom housing association flat in King Street Plymouth £65.26 per week, rent alone.
www.devonhomechoice.com...

Bedsit (private landlord) in King street Plymouth - £81.00 per week, rent alone.
www.zoopla.co.uk... sort=newest_listings&search_source=refine

Both properties are subject to exactly the same amount of council tax.
...stop your uninformed 'jibber jabber'

I can find many more examples if you like, you are simply wrong.
Social/council tenants have it easy compared to the private sector.

*Edit* I spent 15 years of my working life in front-line welfare in DWP, local government social services, and CAB, I know what I'm talking about. The people who face the greatest challenges in our society are generally working and in the private rented sector.
edit on 25-3-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 

Yes, many do, and they have been subject to the 1 person/1 bedroom rule for decades, no-one from the outraged social sector gave a toss about the millions who've dealt with this for years already.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
Here's a thought, why don't regular UK citizens just pick up and leave and move, to say oh I don't know, Canada or Australia? Tons of land. Some places, as in the States, they give it away just to get people in there. So you brits are going to let the chinese move into Canada while the whole lot of you fight for cheap, cramped housing on that sinking island. Unbelievable. Its disgusting how small the population size is for Canada considering its size.

Give the UK government what it wants, move in all the foreigners you can while the rest of you move out. I say this because you guys are obviously not about to do anything else. No riots, no protesting, no voting the bums out of office. So leave. Let them eat cake while they rule an island of foreigners who will turn on them when they feel in the majority.

Hell, come to Texas, we need more english speaking folks here.
you are bang right about the u.k, i am saving up as we speak. As the sex pistols predicted years ago,theres no future and englands dreaming.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
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.


Yes I agree, we should be able to help the young, but there are a percentage that are simple taking advantage. I don't want to insinuate that all these people are the same, there are plenty of teenage parents and young parents that have housing and work honestly and are doing it the right way using it as a footing to grow.

There are plenty of people who work hard but at the same time you have groups that have no intention of working and are having kids to just exploit the systems of welfare.

They obviously know about the issue, but how do you resolve it and weed out the chaff fairly?


Originally posted by Freeborn



..... 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.


Yes that's a tricky one, obviously during the boom time we were told we were at an economical revolution and even told a crash in the system like days of old wouldn't be allowed to happen, but it did.

Personally other then Student loans I've never had any debts, until buying a home. I was told to not have card, pay for things upfront with cash etc

I can understand though, it was hard to turn down credit offers when they look so tantalising.


Originally posted by Freeborn

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.



Yes that is annoying... and whats more annoying is we continue to bail them out, fix the banking system & it would go a long way in aiding a vast majority of issues.


Originally posted by Freeborn
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.


I agree. As they say... you need to spend money to make money, invest and grow. But at the same time, credit needs to be managed right.
edit on 25-3-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-3-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 

The argument was about being better of on benefits or minimum rage. I suppose the poor africans should pull there socks up aswell the lazy good for nothings, your blinded by your own greed.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by grainofsand
 

The argument was about being better of on benefits or minimum rage. I suppose the poor africans should pull there socks up aswell the lazy good for nothings, your blinded by your own greed.

Care to explain that assertion or is it just a silly emotive outburst based on nothing, with an obvious lack of figures to back your previous claims up? I took your challenge and proved you wrong in minutes, as I said I would


*Edit*
As a reminder, this was my original claim:


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



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
In an effort to go back to the OP, I would have to say that in my area (Torbay) the biggest annual influx of people is from British families in other areas of the UK turning up with no accommodation plans and seeking emergency accommodation.
Just one child under the age of 16 makes the family 'vulnerable' and the local authority has a duty of care to house them in hostels, or more usually B&B's.
Now, here's the trick, the B&B accommodation is shockingly expensive for the council so these families, if they stick it out for long enough in one room with bunkbeds, will end up getting priority placement over regular residents on the waiting list - just because the council has to save money.
The council know it, the welfare savvy families know it, all the front-line staff know it (I was frontline for a few years in my working life) and sadly these leaches abuse the system to jump the housing queue. It works well for those who know how to play it, it has always worked well, and as long as councils are forced to prioritise based on 'vulnerable' status (even if they have placed themselves in the situation intentionally) I cannot see how it will change.

The foreign families with kids are just doing what people who've never worked from crappy areas of the UK do when they turn up here in South Devon every year. No difference as far as I can see it.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
80pound rent 20pound electric/gas,20pound council tax,taken of 169 take home pay. 40 hours a week . Leaves you 49 pound a week to clothe,feed,prescriptions,dentist,etc etc.
What a life social rents provide. Yet you sit there dismissing as an entitlement society.
Well i should be entitled to a lot more due to the fact my grandfather gave his life for my future. Not to be 2nd class citizen in my country.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 

Oh, so you think whatever your Grandfather contributed to the nation somehow entitles you to extra welfare support or assistance in your life today? Urm...ok, interesting perspective.

*Edit*
I wouldn't mind your rent, it's half of mine, that's why I've always worked all the hours I was able to grab when I've been on minimum wage/agency work myself. Either way you're better off than the private sector rents so I'm happy for you


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



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by Freeborn
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.

True, I'll agree there, I'm just challenging the breaking hearts from the social/council sector who make out that life is so hard for them now having to face rules we've always had in the private sector.
Even after the rule change social/council tenants will still be vastly better off than private tenants.
Oh, and no-one is forced to pay this shortfall in benefit for excess rooms which they do not 'need', anyone of them can find a smaller place outside of the social sector, but then they'd be even worse off than they would by covering the shortfall. It's much harder outside of the embrace of the welfare state and some people need to realise this.

So have a go at your greedy-pig landlord then instead of begrudging less well off folk their 'less expensive than yours' rents! And how can council tenants with no money find the hundreds of pounds security deposits as well as a month rent in advance, and other private-letting costs? But people like you don't care because they're poor scum who deserve to be homeless.

And those of you who are moaning about your expensive private rents, why don't you all move into a cheaper rented place? Those of you moaning about how expensive your mortgages are, why don't you sell up if you can't manage? Or rent YOUR spare rooms to strangers, then you'll have it 'easy' too won't you? That's what you lot always tell poor folk to do.
edit on 25-3-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
And those of you who are moaning about your expensive private rents, why don't you all move into a cheaper rented place? Those of you moaning about how expensive your mortgages are, why don't you sell up if you can't manage? Or rent YOUR spare rooms to strangers, then you'll have it 'easy' too won't you? That's what you lot always tell poor folk to do.

Urm, did you miss the fact that people out of work in privately rented homes or with a mortgage have always had to rent their spare rooms out or houseshare if they have more bedrooms than the housing benefit will pay for.
The private sector is used to it and haven't had the luxury of cheap rents during the good times when they are in work.
Whatever tears you may shed for this rule change, the people in social/council housing are still better off than the millions of those paying private rents. Sorry if I'm not breaking my heart over this equal playing field, although it's not really equal is it, the cheap social/council rents are still subsidised by taxpayers in the private rented sector.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 





.. the cheap social/council rents are still subsidised by taxpayers in the private rented sector.

Haha - What a load of bollocks!

You do realise that the majority of people claiming benefits ARE working and pay taxes, don't you?

Oh I get it, you're one of those dopey 'holier than thou', easy-to-con type of people who think that all benefit claimants are lazy, drug-addled alcoholics. That's what gov wants you to think you mug.

Wake up and get real.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tdk84
 




Yes I agree, we should be able to help the young, but there are a percentage that are simple taking advantage.


Yes, there is a minority who abuse the benefit system and who use it as a lifestyle choice and I agree that radical reform is required to root these people out and make them contributing members of society.
But what we have at present is the demonisation of everyone on benefits and punishing everyone for the sins of the minority and I personally find that abhorent - we have gone backwards as a caring society and are not far off seeing a return to workhouses etc.



They obviously know about the issue, but how do you resolve it and weed out the chaff fairly?


I don't think 'they' want to 'weed out the chaff fairly' - they want a return to Victorian like times along with all the social injustices that went along with it and by joining in their blame game we help them achieve their goals.

I've never professed to have all the answers - they are the so called experts who are supposed to have our best interests at heart - it's blatantly obvious to me that their only concern is maintaining the gravy train for themselves and bollocks to the rest of us.



Yes that's a tricky one, obviously during the boom time we were told we were at an economical revolution and even told a crash in the system like days of old wouldn't be allowed to happen, but it did.


Yes it sure did, and who caused it - certainly not the poor bugger who is having his benefits cut right down to the bone or the single mother who starves herself so that she can feed her child - and that is no exaggeration because I know several people who do actually do that.



Personally other then Student loans I've never had any debts, until buying a home. I was told to not have card, pay for things upfront with cash etc

I can understand though, it was hard to turn down credit offers when they look so tantalising.


My own daughter is a qualified theatre nurse who has a good job.
Unfortunately she had a very bad back complaint that required three quite major operations.
During this time she had to go on sick leave - her sick pay ran out and she went to her bank where they gave her a larger overdraft and was advised to live off her credit cards.
Just after Christmas her bank closed her account and demanded repayment - they had zero compassion and were uninterested when she explained how difficult it was for her and her son.

Fortunately she has now returned to work and is gradually starting turn things around again.
I have told her that her mortgage has to be the priority but when that is paid it leaves very little.

Can she be blamed for getting into debt or would you have blamed her if she had left her job and gone I.V.A. etc and on to benefits?

I have numerous stories I could relate regarding the realities of debt and hardship genuine people are facing at present.



Yes that is annoying... and whats more annoying is we continue to bail them out, fix the banking system & it would go a long way in aiding a vast majority of issues.


The thing is we are forced to bail them out - we have absolutely zero say in what our government chooses to do with our money.
And are those self same bankers who caused this mess and who we bailed out suffering in any way shape or form?
And what of the MP's etc, don't see them suffering any hardships.

So much for us all being in it together.

Yes it's a crap situation many hard working people are finding themselves in, and as I've said that's a national disgrace, but that doesn't excuse pointing one's finger at other's and wanting their situation to be even crapper than one's own - that's looking at things arse about face and upside down.

Yes, this announcement is a step forward - but one step forward after countless steps backwards amounts to little of substance in my book.
But if we are to make real progress we need to stop bickering with each other and start working together - I have very little faith in that ever happening in my lifetime.
edit on 25/3/13 by Freeborn because: Spelling, grammar, clarity etc



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by grainofsand
 





.. the cheap social/council rents are still subsidised by taxpayers in the private rented sector.

Haha - What a load of bollocks!

You do realise that the majority of people claiming benefits ARE working and pay taxes, don't you?

Oh I get it, you're one of those dopey 'holier than thou', easy-to-con type of people who think that all benefit claimants are lazy, drug-addled alcoholics. That's what gov wants you to think you mug.

Wake up and get real.

Wow, you aggressively assume a lot and you are incorrect in your assertions about me.
It is a fact that housing associations and local authorities are regulated and supported by grants and underwriting services from The Homes and Communities Agency which is itself funded by direct general taxation from working people including the many millions who live in the private rented sector.
The people in the private rented sector gain no benefit whatsoever from the Homes & Communities Agency, so I say again, social/council tenants low rents are subsidised by working people who pay commercial rents in the UK.
Which bit of that do you disagree with?

*Edit*
A reasoned response without childish insults would be helpful for interesting discussion.
edit on 25-3-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CAPT PROTON
 


It seems that it's next to impossible to go from the UK to Canada or the USA without a proper trade, loads of money or family already there.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Well in any case, this is a good idea by the government. Next hopefully , limiting children to two per couple.
edit on 25-3-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join