"on benefits and proud"

[big-all]

There are poor scum milking the system and rich scum doing the same; or worse.

I'm not sure which one p1sses me off more. It's like Sophies Choice which one to let go of.

Can I say both please...?

yes i agree its people using the system other than intended or fidelling from what ever level it happens is wrong and gauls me like anyone else paying taxes

 

[joe-90]

Yet you are both still happy to bring in the non-working criminals with massive families from Eastern Europe. What a pair of dopes.

 

[AronSearle]

Depends what the council call unnecessary rooms. I know one woman who left her partner. He got custody of the kids and she has them over to her place for 3 nights per week (Friday to Sunday) She lives in a two bedroomed house and the council deem the second bedroom unnecessary, when it clearly is necessary(at least for 3 nights) Her ex partner lives in a three bedroomed house and doesn't get charged for 2 spare rooms, which are not needed for 3 nights of the week. The system is fooked.

Yes, I suppose it would be against their human rights to make them sleep on a sofa bed.

Far to traumatizing.

the bedroom tax will actually cost more than it saves in the long run if you include the bureaucracy the related ill health and social health cost

"Social health cost"

What is it with lefties and their bullshit terms, just like giving someone less money is called "the bedroom tax".

And ill health, why would getting someone to live in smaller properties cause ill health, should we be sending doctors round to people in one bedroom flats to check it sent them into a coma?

Just like all this balls about "forcing people out of their homes", no, there not their homes or they wouldn't be forced out of them, they are properties owned by others, paid for by the state for you to live on based upon your needs, if you want to call it "your home", then buy it.

Certainly some flaws in the way it is enforced in some case studies, but using those to disprove the whole idea of it, pfffff.

The biggest flaw with it's execution is you have a number of people in group A, who are on the housing list as they have children and not enough bedrooms, and a number of people in Group B who have too many bedrooms for the number of children they have (or had if they left).

There needs to be a strategy to swap those two groups around, the "bedroom tax" is a blunt tool to do that.

 

[Big Tone]

Yet you are both still happy to bring in the non-working criminals with massive families from Eastern Europe. What a pair of dopes.

FFS stop cherry picking.

What are your origins?

Maybe you got a ****er or ch1nk or wop or Rom in your family from long ago. Get over it; we're all human, although I sometimes wonder about you...

Interesting... So if you found out in a 'Who do you think you are' situation that you are from a race you despise, what then you Rom/****er/hypocrite...

 

[big-all]

Yet you are both still happy to bring in the non-working criminals with massive families from Eastern Europe. What a pair of dopes.

if you are referring to me please quote me directly

 

[big-all]

the bedroom tax will actually cost more than it saves in the long run if you include the bureaucracy the related ill health and social health cost

"Social health cost"

What is it with lefties and their bulls**t terms, just like giving someone less money is called "the bedroom tax".

And ill health, why would getting someone to live in smaller properties cause ill health, should we be sending doctors round to people in one bedroom flats to check it sent them into a coma?

there simply arn't the properties to move into so people have no choice but to pay the say £15 when they are already struggling
miss a few meals or not heat your house when it needs it or go further into debt ---
--- yes your right there no consequences at all its all in my imagination i suppose

other option is the private sector but then the rent is capped so again they cant afford it

typical off governments off all persuasions sell off the housing stock at knock down prices then blame the poor people who have no choice because housing costs to much

 

[joe-90]

Yet you are both still happy to bring in the non-working criminals with massive families from Eastern Europe. What a pair of dopes.

FFS stop cherry picking.

What are your origins?

Maybe you got a ****er or ch1nk or wop or Rom in your family from long ago. Get over it; we're all human, although I sometimes wonder about you...

Interesting... So if you found out in a 'Who do you think you are' situation that you are from a race you despise, what then you Rom/****er/hypocrite...

I'm kicking your ass that's for sure.

Big Tone. Friend of the Roma.

 

[AronSearle]

there simply arn't the properties to move into so people have no choice but to pay the say £15 when they are already struggling

I've already pointed out to you there are large numbers on the waiting list as they have overcrowded housing, swap A with B.

There is also the expectation that anyone on social, should have a "house" to themselves.

If you have single people looking for 1 bedroom houses, someone else with two bedrooms and one spare, the answer seems self evident no?

Oh no, they must both have houses paid for by the state, pfffff.

miss a few meals or not heat your house when it needs it or go further into debt ---
--- yes your right there no consequences at all its all in my imagination i suppose

Yes, there are consequences of expecting free extra rooms, it means taking in a tenant (plenty of single people on social), or paying for the extra empty room.

You've got group C paying overinflated costs for a mortgage/rent on a 1 bedroom flat, then group B getting a 2-3 bedroom house for often 70% of the cost of the 1 bedroom flat on social, in some cases group B may actually be earning more than group C.

The entire housing market has been twisted and distorted by the way it is run.

typical off governments off all persuasions sell off the housing stock at knock down prices then blame the poor people who have no choice because housing costs to much

Those houses that were sold of did not vanish, there are issues with right to buy, but it's a small part of the pie. The MASSIVE increase in single occupancy dwelling, the frankly insane house price costs (many working people needing social, should be easily able to afford their own), and this isnt just an issue of supply, this is the relaxation of mortgage laws allowing huge market speculation.

 

[big-all]

typical off governments off all persuasions sell off the housing stock at knock down prices then blame the poor people who have no choice because housing costs to much

Those houses that were sold of did not vanish

they did from where they where need in the social housing stock
that forces councils to put people in to b&b hotels and expensive [often 10 times the cost] private lets
yes a lodger is a possibility but i don't think its fair to have to choose any old joe blogs off the street
it should be up to the government to screen these the potential lodgers and take some off the responsibility and some off the risk

if its as easy as swapping people over then let the council set it up and give a few carrots [moving redecorating ect] then e few sticks but even those 2 measures would hardly scratch the surface

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

there simply arn't the properties to move into so people have no choice but to pay the say £15 when they are already struggling

I've already pointed out to you there are large numbers on the waiting list as they have overcrowded housing, swap A with B.

There is also the expectation that anyone on social, should have a "house" to themselves.

If you have single people looking for 1 bedroom houses, someone else with two bedrooms and one spare, the answer seems self evident no?

Oh no, they must both have houses paid for by the state, pfffff.

miss a few meals or not heat your house when it needs it or go further into debt ---
--- yes your right there no consequences at all its all in my imagination i suppose

Yes, there are consequences of expecting free extra rooms, it means taking in a tenant (plenty of single people on social), or paying for the extra empty room.

You've got group C paying overinflated costs for a mortgage/rent on a 1 bedroom flat, then group B getting a 2-3 bedroom house for often 70% of the cost of the 1 bedroom flat on social, in some cases group B may actually be earning more than group C.

The entire housing market has been twisted and distorted by the way it is run.

typical off governments off all persuasions sell off the housing stock at knock down prices then blame the poor people who have no choice because housing costs to much

Those houses that were sold of did not vanish, there are issues with right to buy, but it's a small part of the pie. The MASSIVE increase in single occupancy dwelling, the frankly insane house price costs (many working people needing social, should be easily able to afford their own), and this isnt just an issue of supply, this is the relaxation of mortgage laws allowing huge market speculation.

So how about attacking and disparaging the top end of the tree who manage to avoid their 'social responsibility' (tax avoidance) to a far greater amount than is paid out in "state benefits", most of which the recipient has contributed to without a choice. I think its called P.A.Y.E but technically its legalised mugging.

I love coming in here, so much carp spoken by so many about so few.

 

[AronSearle]

So how about attacking and disparaging the top end of the tree who manage to avoid their 'social responsibility' (tax avoidance) to a far greater amount than is paid out in "state benefits"

The top 10% pay something like 50% of all income tax.

A few of them manage to tax dodge, but then so do poor people when they buy duty free or do cash in hand.

The amounts some of the rich avoid are staggering to us folk, but are small to the overall economy, and don't really have much effect.

Most of the corporate tax avoidance is done legally through EU (head offices in Ireland etc), there is not much you can do about this, and corporate tax is only a few % of tax anyway.

People who make a big issue of tax dodgers to "fight the cuts", are misinformed, yes tax dodging is an issue, but the amounts "lost" don't go anywere near plugging the deficit.

And this doesnt have anything to do with the heavily distorted housing market, when you have people paying more for 1 bedroom flats (privatly) than other working people get for 3-4 bedroom homes through housing associations (both may be earning similar amounts).

You got problems.

they did from where they where need in the social housing stock

Social housing has decreased by about 1 million homes, now if we didnt have about half a million singletons looking for council housing, and housing provided for about half a million immigrants.

Where's the problem?

if its as easy as swapping people over then let the council set it up and give a few carrots [moving redecorating ect] then e few sticks but even those 2 measures would hardly scratch the surface

What do you base this on?

We have apparantly millions of social multi bedroom properties, half a million singletons, another half a million underused (mostly people who's kids moved away).

The housing seems to be there, but just completely misallocated, (further proof is that only hundreds are allocated into B&B's). The problem seems to be far to many people get into a social house, and then it's their "home", and they can't be shifted.

 

[big-all]

the link for those that missed the program and would like to watch it
http://www.channel5.com/shows/on-benefits-proud/episodes/on-benefits-proud

 

[Big Tone]

Of the very few people I know who have tried, and been unable, to find work and earn a little for a few pints 'on the side', they are not the ones IMHO who should be strung up by their balls. (So long as they are making a genuine effort to get work).

They would have us believe if it weren't for these 'parasites' the country wouldn't be in the sh1t. That simply isn't the case!

Actually, I get more bent out of shape about high-earning useless ineffective managers who do sweet FA and if they dropped dead tomorrow no one would notice for six months. (Empty suits, as I call them).

 

[NickS601]

Just like all this balls about "forcing people out of their homes", no, there not their homes or they wouldn't be forced out of them, they are properties owned by others, paid for by the state for you to live on based upon your needs, if you want to call it "your home", then buy it.

I share your point of view more than most but is someone's HOME merely by virtue of living in it - the HOUSE that belongs to others. A HOME colud be a tent, a boat a caravan et

 

[EFLImpudence]

The top 10% pay something like 50% of all income tax.

That would only be fair if they 'earned' nine times as much.

I suspect the figure is higher, therefore ...