And those that are capable, no doubt already do.
No.
but they should have enough to be able to eat and have access to public services
Mortgages for people on UC. Is it the stupidest idea ever?
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
but they should have enough to be able to eat and have access to public services
No, i don't have a percentage and don't intend to follow that line of argument.
There will be people on Universal credit going without food. Some of those will be in a genuinely unfortunate situation and deserve more help. But some of those will also have got themselves into that situation thought their poor management of money.
I don't know the percentages of that either, but i do know it as fact based on my own experience with my own workforce.
My company offeres interest free loans to our staff when they get into financial difficulties. They are of limited size and are paid back through deductions taken directly through payroll. We limited the number of loans per year, and its intended to avoid staff getting themselves into trouble with loan sharks or the old payday loan companies. We always ask why they need the loan, and often get told chapter and verse as to why they need it.
I'm afraid the cause is usually spending more than they can afford on big TVs, flashy phones, socialising (ie alchohol) etc etc. It's quite common to get reports of staff who've just asked for a loan around Christmas time to buy their kids presents, to be back asking for more the following week having literally p!ssed it up the wall.
But you're assuming that all those that are capable do, and that all those that don't have enough eat have run out of money for good reasons, when in many cases its just not true.
You can't apply the same brush to those categories of people (and yes i accept that i can't apply that brush either).
It's been this way for hundreds of years. A select few obtaining more and more control over ever larger areas of land. With taxes raised going to governmental campaigns and ... of course ... the royal family. Yes, I take great comfort in knowing the common man/woman essentially paid for all the land and humungous properties enjoyed by our modern day royals
Which is why, regardless of the rhetoric, the powers that be don't want any form of significant reform to redress this. After all, would you if you were in the proverbial top 1%?
Restrict people from abroad buying property as an investment restrict holiday homes in areas with a high local demand for housing
police air b&|b and the like better
It doesn't need to be that many - how many people working and paying tax, does it need to support one able person who make it a lifestyle choice to not work and not contribute?
Individuals with dare I say a degree of greed need to accept some of the blame/responsibility here though. We've all read articles about locals being priced out of their area e.g. picturesque fishing village. However, over the years when local properties are going up for sale, the seller will be happy to accept the largest offer. If the estate agent is advising the seller 'we can put this on at £450k and it'll achieve that easily' I very much doubt any seller will reply with 'no, let's put it on at £175k so it's more achievable for locals to buy, oh and let's restrict buyers to those in the immediate area who are earning less than £40k a year.'
It's just not going to happen. Then, after all the locals have gradually sold to the highest bidder, it's everyone else's fault that the area is devoid of locals with many homes unoccupied other than weekends and school hols.
But it gets people like Mottie and Filly excited and prevents them from imagining seeing their hero Boris lying...in a ditch...or hiding in a fridge.
No I cannot give a percentage because, as you well know, even government statistics could not give a true figure.
People in your list certainly would fill the criteria to be eligible for help and a lot of disabled people would also qualify. However, a lot of them, and a lot of disabled, manage to hold down a job by one means or another. Some are even very successful at their chosen career. So explain to me why so many on benefits are able to 'work the system'. I was under the mistaken belief that if you were unemployed you had a certain amount of time to look for work in your field of experience. After this allotted time You were then expected to look at diversifying into something different, even if the salary was below your previous earnings. Certainly doesn't seem to be happening to a lot of them when you read reports in the news that, "Unemployed Mr XXX XXX was arrested on a charge of *****. In his defence he claims living on benefits for x number of years had driven him to crime to feed his drink/drugs/gambling habits."
Do you honestly believe people like this should be taunted by the expectation that they should be allowed to buy their own home at the tax payers expense when many people, who do 2 or even 3 jobs just to make ends meet, know they won't be able to?
Notch, let me ask you a straightforward question or two. Do you work as an employee or self employed in any capacity? If yes, are you happy that some people on benefits are working the system that you contribute to in order that THE NEEDY are able to try and keep their head above water?
People in your list certainly would fill the criteria to be eligible for help and a lot of disabled people would also qualify. However, a lot of them, and a lot of disabled, manage to hold down a job by one means or another. Some are even very successful at their chosen career. So explain to me why so many on benefits are able to 'work the system'. I was under the mistaken belief that if you were unemployed you had a certain amount of time to look for work in your field of experience. After this allotted time You were then expected to look at diversifying into something different, even if the salary was below your previous earnings. Certainly doesn't seem to be happening to a lot of them when you read reports in the news that, "Unemployed Mr XXX XXX was arrested on a charge of *****. In his defence he claims living on benefits for x number of years had driven him to crime to feed his drink/drugs/gambling habits."
Do you honestly believe people like this should be taunted by the expectation that they should be allowed to buy their own home at the tax payers expense when many people, who do 2 or even 3 jobs just to make ends meet, know they won't be able to?
Notch, let me ask you a straightforward question or two. Do you work as an employee or self employed in any capacity? If yes, are you happy that some people on benefits are working the system that you contribute to in order that THE NEEDY are able to try and keep their head above water?
I am well aware of three, probably four individuals working the system, at public expense.
I too know a number of claimants working/abusing the system. They also know I know so no longer speak/text me but their time will come when they will be investigated. As they are in the midlands I know someone else who is also privvy to their tricks but they don't know he/she knows.
These are two critical aspects always overlooked. Thatcher sold off millions of council houses at huge discounts. OK, fine, be a nation of homeowners. But there was little or no restriction placed in order to stop that modest £25k 2 bed flat in Westminster being an instant £££ windfall for the tenants. Predatory LLs were in like hyenas offering double, and off Nan and Grampa went to the seaside- metaphorically.
It could have been simple: a 10 year sales ban unless sold back to the LA at the same price + RPI/CPI inflation. Reversion to tenancy in cases of hardship.
It's interesting that you vilify the people 'gaming the system' at the bottom, whilst ignoring the people at the upper-middle and top who syphon billions more than the paltry benefit fraudsters do.
D
Deleted member 18243
Nothing costs more to the public purse than welfare payments. See my calculations earlier in this thread about how much a week's dole costs the country, it is not a paltry amount.
