Jump to content

IS THIS FAIR


big_cod

Recommended Posts

Ah, John, there is a subtle difference between "a government which makes most people happy" and "a government which makes the most people happy". You will never please everyone in a system which amounts to two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One parasitic problem family in Tees side costs the country an ESTIMATED £600.000 PER YEAR. Police call out, benefits etc.

 

How they have come to this amount i dont know ! Most annoying

"La conclusión es que los insultos sólo perjudican cuando vienen de alguien que respeto". e5006689.gif

“Vescere bracis meis”

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One parasitic problem family in Tees side costs the country an ESTIMATED £600.000 PER YEAR. Police call out, benefits etc.

 

How they have come to this amount i dont know ! Most annoying

I know of two parasitic families that costs the country much more than that and they're neighbours: they live at no10 and no11

  • Like 1

Smile they said life could get worse, I did and it was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of two parasitic families that costs the country much more than that and they're neighbours: they live at no10 and no11

 

And it does not matter what Party they run, they are all as bad as each other and have ****** things up between them over the years.

  • Like 2

RUDD

 

Different floats for different folks!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

totally unfair. And might cost the public purse a lot of money.

 

If everyone in social housing that has a "spare bedroom" were to move to the private rented sector to get into the "right size" then the cost would be greater than is currently being paid in housing benefit for these "subsidised" rooms.

 

And when that tosser Cameron says get a lodger, why should anyone be forced to take a stranger into their home. If the government wants people in the "right sized" home in the social sector then they should make them available.

 

As an example, I live in a three bed house which I rent from the Highland Council. I pay £80.92 per week. Let's pretend I get 100% housing benefit. Let's also say that Jill sees sense and walks out taking the kids with her. That would mean I would be entitled to a one bed property. There are no one bed social houses available in Thurso, so I get myself a one bed flat from a private landlord. I would then be entitled to Local Housing Allowance. The rate for LHA for a one bed property in Thurso is £90 per week.

 

So looking at the above scenario not only would it cost the public purse an additional £10 per week for me to move house, but it would doubtless cost the public purse more to help me meet the cost of moving too.

 

Incidently, the LHA for a three bed is £126.92! Private rented housing costs more and gives no real security of tenure. It really is stupid to follow a policy which is designed to cost less that will cost more and give far less security of tenure to families.

This is going to be doubly unfair north of the border. Many local authorities in Scotland have NEVER built studio flats or single room accommodation. You have a referendum coming in 2014. I trust you use your vote wisely ;)

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to be doubly unfair north of the border. Many local authorities in Scotland have NEVER built studio flats or single room accommodation. You have a referendum coming in 2014. I trust you use your vote wisely ;)

 

If there are families with children renting inadequate private sector properties, would it not make sense to swap them into under-occupied local authority houses and get the current occupants into smaller rented properties in the private sector? Or is it the case that the current occupancy is optimal and there is no need to try to use it more efficiently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are families with children renting inadequate private sector properties, would it not make sense to swap them into under-occupied local authority houses and get the current occupants into smaller rented properties in the private sector? Or is it the case that the current occupancy is optimal and there is no need to try to use it more efficiently?

I thought that Nick had more or less answered the question in post #2.

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick's calculus correctly identifies that moving a single man from a three bedroom council house to a smaller privately rented dwelling would cost more in housing benefit - however, that's only half the balance sheet. You will be moving a family into the council house, potentially from a private rent (and if not, you'll be moving someone into their old house, and so on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.