- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
So you'd rather let a large family live there on benefits rather than a working man live there and pay the FULL rent
silly boy
Friends been forced to move or pay more rent
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
So you'd rather let a large family live there on benefits rather than a working man live there and pay the FULL rent
silly boy
Sponsored Links
Yes, I would rather they do not become lifelong welfare dependants as you think they should.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
That could be inferred from the title, he's paying the full rent and been asked to pay extra to compensate for the unoccupied rooms.
Over and above his normal rent.
He is paying the full amount of rent that's been asked for.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
Not really Ive just told him he should buy the house get 75% off of the market value and then he can live in his home cheaper than the rent he's been asked to pay.
Then house then will be taken out of the social sector, that'll stop welfare dependants living in it. Bet your still not happy !
Your trying to be clever with words, but it's rather transparent, the amount of rent he has been asked to pay in full, is not the full rent, but the subsidised one.
Not really Ive just told him he should buy the house get 75% off of the market value and then he can live in his home cheaper than the rent he's been asked to pay.
Then house then will be taken out of the social sector, that'll stop welfare dependants living in it. Bet your still not happy !
Lol indeed, seeing as that's not something I support.
You seem quite happy for social housing to be something that once you get, is yours for life.
You want people to stay welfare dependant, you want to create a people who aspire not to achieve much, or to also create a divide between have and have nots.
It's people like you that create a situation where someone who goes on later in life to earn £100k a year still get to keep their council house, whilst poor families struggling get chucked in temporary accommodation.
You the worst kind of leftist, short-sighted and greedy, it's people like you who made council housing a lifestyle rather than a safety net.
I lost the thread ( and the plot pages ago[Not really Ive just told him he should buy the house get 75% off of the market value and then he can live in his home cheaper than the rent he's been asked to pay.
Then house then will be taken out of the social sector, that'll stop welfare dependants living in it. Bet your still not happy !
) But as a matter of principle I would say buy the house - then instead of "claiming" a £ subsidy from the Gov . via Social Housing rent - the mortgage £ can go to the Gov. via a mortgage from one of the banks that the Gov. ( aka the taxpayer) owns .I'd be very p!ssed off having being displaced to let some jonny foreigner in my home Bet mr cameron wouldn't have it would he?.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
Your trying to be clever with words, but it's rather transparent, the amount of rent he has been asked to pay in full, is not the full rent, but the subsidised one.
Not really Ive just told him he should buy the house get 75% off of the market value and then he can live in his home cheaper than the rent he's been asked to pay.
Then house then will be taken out of the social sector, that'll stop welfare dependants living in it. Bet your still not happy !
Lol indeed, seeing as that's not something I support.
You seem quite happy for social housing to be something that once you get, is yours for life.
You want people to stay welfare dependant, you want to create a people who aspire not to achieve much, or to also create a divide between have and have nots.
It's people like you that create a situation where someone who goes on later in life to earn £100k a year still get to keep their council house, whilst poor families struggling get chucked in temporary accommodation.
You the worst kind of leftist, short-sighted and greedy, it's people like you who made council housing a lifestyle rather than a safety net.
what a pearler and so wrong
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
"You seem quite happy for social housing to be something that once you get, is yours for life."
Why not if your on a low income ? and when the person dies it goes back in to the pool for the next family that need it.
"You want people to stay welfare dependant, you want to create a people who aspire not to achieve much, or to also create a divide between have and have nots."
What a ludicrous statement, if a individual doesn't have the means to get on that's their unfortunate predicament...why take their home from them.
"It's people like you that create a situation where someone who goes on later in life to earn £100k a year still get to keep their council house, whilst poor families struggling get chucked in temporary accommodation."
You want your cake and to eat it, on one hand you say I'm creating welfare dependent people that ties up social houing, then you say Im tying up houses for people who earn £100,000..........make your mind up !
Why would someone earning £100k want to stay in a council house !
You the worst kind of leftist, short-sighted and greedy, it's people like you who made council housing a lifestyle rather than a safety net.
Do I think people earning £100k should have a council house NO !
Your own prejudices and emotions have taken over and your not seeing the point I was making. Your not seeing I'm talking about peoples lives and homes, essentially been forced to move through Labours social engineering exercises. I have no problem whatsoever with people on benefits having housing benefit reduced if they have empty rooms, that's fair enough. But someone who is paying the rent that's asked then being asked to pay more purely as a fine is grossly unfair.
Subsidized housing really..........what he pays in rent in two months would
probably cove the cost of building the house when it was built in the fifties !! Councils doing pretty well out of that I would say.
That it doesn't cover the cost of the bureaucracy of the local housing department is another story.
This policy will result in more people been forced to buy their council houses to prevent them from been kicked out !!!!
Shortsighted and greedy pray tell why ?
Why not if your on a low income ? and when the person dies it goes back in to the pool for the next family that need it.
"You want people to stay welfare dependant, you want to create a people who aspire not to achieve much, or to also create a divide between have and have nots."
What a ludicrous statement, if a individual doesn't have the means to get on that's their unfortunate predicament...why take their home from them.
"It's people like you that create a situation where someone who goes on later in life to earn £100k a year still get to keep their council house, whilst poor families struggling get chucked in temporary accommodation."
You want your cake and to eat it, on one hand you say I'm creating welfare dependent people that ties up social houing, then you say Im tying up houses for people who earn £100,000..........make your mind up !
Why would someone earning £100k want to stay in a council house !
You the worst kind of leftist, short-sighted and greedy, it's people like you who made council housing a lifestyle rather than a safety net.
Do I think people earning £100k should have a council house NO !
Your own prejudices and emotions have taken over and your not seeing the point I was making. Your not seeing I'm talking about peoples lives and homes, essentially been forced to move through Labours social engineering exercises. I have no problem whatsoever with people on benefits having housing benefit reduced if they have empty rooms, that's fair enough. But someone who is paying the rent that's asked then being asked to pay more purely as a fine is grossly unfair.
Subsidized housing really..........what he pays in rent in two months would
probably cove the cost of building the house when it was built in the fifties !! Councils doing pretty well out of that I would say.
That it doesn't cover the cost of the bureaucracy of the local housing department is another story.
This policy will result in more people been forced to buy their council houses to prevent them from been kicked out !!!!
Shortsighted and greedy pray tell why ?
Ask bob crow the union boss.
Why not?
You have already established that you think that when people go on to earn more money, or be given a bigger house than they need, they should still keep their council house, which means already you will have working people paying private rent getting less than those that got into council housing, why start drawing more arbitrary lines.
Social housing is either for those that need it, or those that can get it, you want the latter.
They don't own them, the council do, point invalid. Using the word home sounds all nice and fluffy, doesn't actually make it theirs any-more than when a squatter calls a house a home, or a renter.
Unfair? It's called "life".
They no longer need the extra bedrooms, do you know what having something you don't need is, it's called a "luxury", you get charged more for luxuries than you do for needs.
Ohhh how unfair!!
Yes, let's just ignore a whole range of costs so you can conveniently claim it makes them money.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
Ask bob crow the union boss.
Why not?
You have already established that you think that when people go on to earn more money, or be given a bigger house than they need, they should still keep their council house, which means already you will have working people paying private rent getting less than those that got into council housing, why start drawing more arbitrary lines.
Social housing is either for those that need it, or those that can get it, you want the latter.
They don't own them, the council do, point invalid. Using the word home sounds all nice and fluffy, doesn't actually make it theirs any-more than when a squatter calls a house a home, or a renter.
Unfair? It's called "life".
They no longer need the extra bedrooms, do you know what having something you don't need is, it's called a "luxury", you get charged more for luxuries than you do for needs.
Ohhh how unfair!!
Yes, let's just ignore a whole range of costs so you can conveniently claim it makes them money.
Oh dear oh dear one is a little mixed up isn't one.
So I'm a greedy leftist You haven't answered any points.
you just harp on with your view offering no facts to support your argument. come on give me some figures to support your argument.
Had this chap bought a house he'd be paying less than the council want to "Fine " him now in rent.
Anyway its obvious that any housholder will have to accommodate immigrants if their house is under occupied, emergency measures to house the coming millions will be introduced its happened before and its looking like it will happen again.
Sponsored Links
