Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK migration crackdown: ‘No social housing for newcomers’

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand
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)
admit it you fiddleing the system, i bet your spouse lives with you and your milking the system. What the heck does children living 3/4 mean.
If your not a troll maybe you should consider moving to a gated community where you can be free of the riff raff.




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Addiction is not a disability I used to smoke weed and have a dependancy on it, and now I smoke normal ciggerates . Bottom line is its NOT a disability, what happens when we misuse substances leads to disability sure, but dont make out that due to the fact that these people have these dependancies, that they then should have money to not only further cover their drug/substance abuse habit but to also give them additional comforts. Like a nice comfy home for 15yrs plus, where no one encourages them to get up and out to work. Dont kid yourself, they know what a meal ticket is. And its tax payers money, I agree with the Op, Let them go to a prison type place, its cheaper overall for everyone, and when they are clean they can come out. And they HAVE to work. They should be tagged and have to work.....



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


They could also ban greedy landlords. Some landlords are seriously milking it and not even providing adequate housing. I know its a sector that the government dont care about. Hence the rich getting richer. But there should be more laws when it comes to landlords and how they treat the people renting in their homes.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
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)


Good grief. I suppose the surplus could go into ready meals now that tescos have run out of horse.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

Originally posted by grainofsand
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)
admit it you fiddleing the system, i bet your spouse lives with you and your milking the system. What the heck does children living 3/4 mean.
If your not a troll maybe you should consider moving to a gated community where you can be free of the riff raff.

Wow, another poster here who is mainly emotional without any reasoned argument, while resorting to childish insults or accusations.
I assumed 3/4 days per week was easy to understand. My son is with me either 3 or 4 days per week depending on circumstances. His mother gets the child benefit so is legally classed as the primary carer and any claims to benefit by myself will only result in the local rate for single bedroom accommodation as shared parenting does not influence housing benefit applications.
Why is that difficult to understand?
Why accuse me of milking the system when I've previously stated that claiming benefit would result in a £300 per month shortfall in rent because housing benefit will not fund my 2 bedroom home. It is why I always work as many hours as I can to fund my lifestyle.
Your argument is lame and childish. I'm disappointed to be honest as I've avoided insults and stuck to figures and facts. Oh well, you present your own image to the rest of ATS, I shall leave others to make their own minds about who is the most civil in this rather unfortunate exchange of words.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


You missed the point I made with my post's.....that we have become a finger pointing society turning against each other and laying blame and making judgement's. All the while the real issue's that should be debated and the real blame is overlooked.

Even living on a council estate alone or being on benefit's is enough for many people to be stigmatised in this current climate. Why do you think that is? Because all those in social housing or on benefit's are all Jeremy Kyle case's on drugs and alcoholics? Or because they have become a convenient scapegoat?

I rented in the private sector for many year's and I know also the great difficulties of paying extortionate rents even when you have a wage coming in. But I still cannot applaud a benefit cut that is going to affect a huge number of people needing an extra bedroom because of a disability. The same households where those with a disability may not have the option to work, or have a partner caring for a spouse or a parent caring for a child which mean's they can't work either. The biggest bulk of those affected by this benefit cut make up those very families.

I also don't disagree that working families also get screwed over...but this is my point, that our focus as been one of finger pointing and resentment of each other and blaming section's of society rather than addressing the real issue.

As I have already mentioned after the right to buy scheme was introduced a large percentage of social housing stock was bought up and it as never been replaced. We now find ourselves in a position that there isn't enough decent social housing to go around...so immigrant's and those with a "spare" bedroom get demonised. How about people should get angry at the fact that a huge stock of socially valuable dwellings was sold off so people could better themselves and purchase a home at a very reduced market value....at the expense of those who can't afford to pay private rents and struggle to secure a home? And how about we get angry at the fact that this socially valuable housing stock as never been replaced?

Maybe i am a soft touch and maybe I am not looking at this the right way.....but it genuinely saddens me the way the people in this country have turned on each other and have bought into bs blame games and the grossly mis-represented stereotype's enforced by the tabloid's.

When immigrant's find it harder to get social housing and benefit's and when those on benefit's get their benefit caps and bedroom taxe's....and there still isn't enough decent quality social housing in area's and estate's where people want to live....and there still isn't enough money to go around....and those working families are still finding it hard to live......I wonder who we will have left to blame?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


3 to 4 days how convenient.4 or 5 days then your childrens mother would lose benefits. Are you paying maintainance? You certainly do know the benefit system inside out. So yes let the audience decide what it looks like. I know what it looks like to me.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by grainofsand
 


3 to 4 days how convenient.4 or 5 days then your childrens mother would lose benefits. Are you paying maintainance? You certainly do know the benefit system inside out. So yes let the audience decide what it looks like. I know what it looks like to me.



Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by grainofsand
 


3 to 4 days how convenient.4 or 5 days then your childrens mother would lose benefits. Are you paying maintainance? You certainly do know the benefit system inside out. So yes let the audience decide what it looks like. I know what it looks like to me.

Nope, 3 or 4 days because we wanted to provide a loving shared experience of parenting in teamwork with each other, in an effort to raise a well balanced and happy child who knows he is loved, and that his parents have love for each other even if they are in two locations. It has worked well and I wish all couples who split could get over themselves and concentrate on the important job they have of being good parents.

For the record, my ex earns too much to get any tax credits or other means tested benefits, and she has nearly finished paying for her house after a big deposit to buy it with the proceeds of the sale of our former marital home. I was happy for her to be the one with property as she is more sensible and stable than I am so there was a greater likelihood of our son having an inheritance if it was hers and not mine.
The only benefits she gets is the £20 or so that is child benefit each week.
I have sometimes helped her with the mortgage when she's struggled in the time since we've split though, because I love the stability she, as a wonderful mother, offers our son.

I have no need to explain myself to you but I am happy to share the facts as they are.
Neither of us play any system or scam our way through life. Perhaps scamming is what you may consider normal behaviour but it is not something I have had to consider myself.

*Edit*
I can't believe you got 2 stars for such rude and unsubstantiated insinuations about my life, but hey that is the digital world I guess. It is easy to be needlessly insulting from a keyboard.
edit on 25-3-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 





.. . which is itself funded by direct general taxation from working people . ..

The very same people who are working for minimum pay and need to claim housing and top up benefits ALSO PAY TAXES. They are entitled to the benefits they receive, otherwise they wouldn't be getting them.

Some people on here are just awful and soul-less, and would have no objection to throwing poor families out on the street with nothing. Considering that you are citizens of a first world nation, you should be ashamed.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by grainofsand
 





.. . which is itself funded by direct general taxation from working people . ..

The very same people who are working for minimum pay and need to claim housing and top up benefits ALSO PAY TAXES. They are entitled to the benefits they receive, otherwise they wouldn't be getting them.

Some people on here are just awful and soul-less, and would have no objection to throwing poor families out on the street with nothing. Considering that you are citizens of a first world nation, you should be ashamed.

Why should I be ashamed?
I pointed out that the many millions of working people who live in privately rented accommodation pay taxes which support the agency which funds social housing and they get nothing out of it.
What exactly should I be ashamed about there?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Pay no heed to the negative comment's....

Me and my kid's dad had the same kind of arrangement for a few year's.....and I applaud any man who want's to take on the responsibility for their children in equal measure. It was the right thing for my children also and I have nothing but respect for their dad. We were able to come to a financial agreement that made it fair to both of us. But I fear that too many good dad's are penalised and left struggling by the system when they step up to the mark.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Thankyou for explaining yourself. Qone more question,why rent when you could easily afford to buy. Renting is dead money.
P.s i dont think you need to moan about people less fortunate than yourself may be you should look at the people defrauding billions. No one asked for immigration,no one voted to lower wages to the point they are forced to claim benefits, no one wants to be unemployed , no one asked to have their children dumbed down. No one voted for no social mobility etc etc etc etc etc



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logos23
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Pay no heed to the negative comment's....

Me and my kid's dad had the same kind of arrangement for a few year's.....and I applaud any man who want's to take on the responsibility for their children in equal measure. It was the right thing for my children also and I have nothing but respect for their dad. We were able to come to a financial agreement that made it fair to both of us. But I fear that too many good dad's are penalised and left struggling by the system when they step up to the mark.

Thanks Logos, you are right though, the benefits system does not help split couples work a team effort thing out though, shared parenting is disregarded by welfare legislation, primary carer is generally decided in the eyes of the law by who's name the child benefit is in. The one who hasn't got it will only be paid for a single person home if they lose their job.
Maybe my situation is pretty rare though so the legislation hasn't caught up with such ways of doing things yet.
I hope it does one day



Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Thankyou for explaining yourself. Qone more question,why rent when you could easily afford to buy. Renting is dead money.
P.s i dont think you need to moan about people less fortunate than yourself may be you should look at the people defrauding billions. No one asked for immigration,no one voted to lower wages to the point they are forced to claim benefits, no one wants to be unemployed , no one asked to have their children dumbed down. No one voted for no social mobility etc etc etc etc etc

I'll buy when my deposit raising ability is improved after my son starts a career and I have the associated reduced expenses in life. Not too many years to go now though.
I'm not moaning about people less fortunate than myself either though, I love that we have a strong welfare state. I worked 15 years of my life in it from civil service, to housing team & social services in my local authority, to local CAB before budgets were slashed a few years ago. I'm moaning about people who are already in a very much more fortunate position in life with low rents kicking off that they have to deal with the same rules that everyone in the private rented sector has had to deal with for decades.

I'll admit it is probably based on some bitterness due to not wanting to pull off the scams I could so easily do myself if I wanted to get social housing, but there is definitely a percentage of people who milk it and from my experience in the trade it's a wind up when there are complaints that rules are bringing them into line with everyone else.
No offence to the genuine, but preferential rules for social/council tenants is not fair either. Perhaps we should all campaign for the extra bedroom rule to be removed from private tenants as well?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Logos23
 




But I fear that too many good dad's are penalised and left struggling by the system when they step up to the mark.


Indeed there are.

The common denominator here seems to be 'the system' that we have no control over or no say in that is fixed to screw the everyday Joe over no matter what.

No matter what we do the odds seem stacked against us.

Most people just want a simple life with a roof over their head, money to heat, clothe and feed their family and perhaps a little bit left over to enjoy a few distractions to enable them to get them through.

Not a lot to ask for really is it in this day and age?
edit on 25/3/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by grainofsand
 





.. . which is itself funded by direct general taxation from working people . ..

The very same people who are working for minimum pay and need to claim housing and top up benefits ALSO PAY TAXES. They are entitled to the benefits they receive, otherwise they wouldn't be getting them.

Some people on here are just awful and soul-less, and would have no objection to throwing poor families out on the street with nothing. Considering that you are citizens of a first world nation, you should be ashamed.

Why should I be ashamed?
I pointed out that the many millions of working people who live in privately rented accommodation pay taxes which support the agency which funds social housing and they get nothing out of it.
What exactly should I be ashamed about there?

There are many millions of council tenants also work and pay taxes, or are these taxes kept separate from everyone else's and spent somewhere else? Why aren't you having a jab at miserly corporations who refuse to pay a penny above minimum wage despite billions in profits? It's their fault that working people are so bad off and have to claim benefits just to live. Why can't you look beyond the end of your beak and see this?

You give the impression that you think poor people should have no right to any subsidised social housing whatsoever, either because they don't earn enough or they haven't got a job. What would you do with them then? Would you throw them all out onto the street? Or don't you care? Why do you want them to have a crappier life than they've already got? You resent them their basic miserable existence just because you pay taxes, but if you think you would be better off and paying less in taxes if they were all evicted you'd be wronger than you've ever been. The problem is the wealthy politicians and their rich buddies draining gov coffers, not the poorest in our society as you appear to believe - and that's why I said you are gullible and easy to con - because you are.
edit on 25-3-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
It's pretty simple why this is going to get pushed through, and has nothing to do with benifits.

At the moment, the government are under pressure to build more houses, alot and quickley.

They are beeing advised by many economists to do so, to help out with the housing market and first time buyers, to supplying many jobs and boost trade and business.

However, if they do this, this would make property cheaper. By either the supply and demand effect, or by damaging green belt land (and views).

Many rich invest in properties at time of economic uncertaincy, and i bet many politicians have (second homes scandles?)

If they go and take the economists advise, they/the rich will loose money. But, if they go through with this, then there will be more cheaper houses and people will have to live in them or be told to go back to the street.

If you don't want the rich class to loose any money, make a poorer class.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn


The common denominator here seems to be 'the system' that we have no control over or no say in that is fixed to screw the everyday Joe over no matter what.

No matter what we do the odds seem stacked against us.



Exactly! The housing situation is a drop in the ocean...there used to be a time when the people blamed " the system" and government's for screwing us over...but now we live in a culture more where we blame each other. Is this move in attitude's founded in truth's? I'm not convinced it is......



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Logos23
 




But I fear that too many good dad's are penalised and left struggling by the system when they step up to the mark.


Indeed there are.

The common denominator here seems to be 'the system' that we have no control over or no say in that is fixed to screw the everyday Joe over no matter what.

No matter what we do the odds seem stacked against us.

Most people just want a simple life with a roof over their head, money to heat, clothe and feed their family and perhaps a little bit left over to enjoy a few distractions to enable them to get them through.

Not a lot to ask for really is it in this day and age?
edit on 25/3/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity
they increased social rents and made a rule up of getting social rents to 80percent private. Then they sell off social housing to right to buy/housing associations. People cant find social housing so private rents go up and because of blairs/labour social rent policy ,social rents go up. The welfare bill sky rockets and the tories try and claw it back with this silly bedroom tax. Grandkids cant stop a grandmas house anymore she has moved to a 1bed somewhere. Who profits? Rich landlords.
We could solve our economic woes by reversing social rents to year 2000 levels. People would have more money to spend while halving the housing benefit bill. But oh no that wont happen because the only people who are buying property are the rich people who buy to let,artificially keeping up rents and house prices. The perfect scam for the rich. Just like all the m.p's who own shares in employment agencies. It stinks without the bashers of the poor doing the work of these rich bloodsucking parasites.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
You give the impression that you think poor people should have no right to any subsidised social housing whatsoever, either because they don't earn enough or they haven't got a job.

If you want to directly quote me to support that assertion then please do.

My only issue is that housing benefit legislation should not have rules which are preferential for social/council tenants, and by default, discriminatory against private/commercial sector tenants.
If the campaign is to allow extra bedrooms for private and social tenants alike in housing benefit rules then I'm all for it. If there is no campaign to protect the private sector tenants as well then I question the intentions.
edit on 25-3-2013 by grainofsand because: Messed up quotes lol



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


Good post. Let's not forget the tories doing away with rent caps for private landlords in 88 either.






top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join