Tuesday, Feb 16, 2010
More wasted benefits money
Daily Express: Fury at mum on £100,000 a year benefits
Britain’s benefits shambles was exposed last night by the case of a mother-of-six who receives £7,000 a month of taxpayers’ cash to live in a £2million mansion.
Posted by mr g @ 05:10 PM (1469 views) Add Comment
23 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Non Frog said...
Usual politics of envy (of the poor) drivel from this garbage fish-and-chip wrapper pretending to be a newspaper. The woman in question does not get any money - her landlord does. Your council tax is keeping BTL alive and keeping house prices high. So one woman is now stuck in a poverty trap for life and can never realise her potential - but no lets all have a go at her and ignore the banksters bonus shall we. Tabloid bigotry at its best.
2. Thecountofnowhere said...
I know a single mum, 3 kids, on the equivalent of 60K taxable income per year. She lives in a nice house, has nice holidays and works 20 hours a week as a Learning Assistant at a school.
It's this sort of gross stupidty and spending by the Labour Government that has caused this country years of future pain.
3. braindeed said...
It's the EXPRESS
4. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
5. 51ck-6-51x said...
Wasted? Who are The Express to say if it's wasted? It may well be waste, but I see no rigorous analysis!
;p
Maybe we can turn the anger around and send our thanks to this woman for her arbitrage? In a free market this kind of action itself drives the system to a fairer state. Of course in a truly free market this woman would be seeking a charitable trust's aid who would certainly do a better job of allocating resources.
6. kruador said...
Noticed how all of these stories come from Westminster Council? The fact is the market is so ridiculously overheated in Westminster, and so little council housing is available, that Local Housing Allowance paid directly to private landlords is the only option. LHA pays 'market rates' even if the market rate is ridiculous. Squash the stupid market and LHA payments will drop.
It does surprise me that the usual 'no DSS' culture isn't being applied. Maybe there simply aren't any private tenants out there?
7. Alan Lubin said...
The council rent payments 'make' the market.
8. Gordiji said...
Small potatoes compared to the various 'benefits' homeowners and banks have and still are still receiving!
9. hpwatcher said...
It's the EXPRESS
So because it's the express, it isn't a fact?
10. icarus said...
So 84% of the headline £100,000 goes to the landlord. As kruador says, this is an indictment of the state of the housing market.
11. rumble said...
At this rate, there's a possibility people might one day start to think that government is a flawed concept.
12. little professor said...
kruador has made the vital point
13. braindeed said...
@4. H pee watcher said
It's the EXPRESS
So because it's the express, it isn't a fact?
Fact? Synonyms could include such EXPRESSIONS as truth, reality, actuality....are you sure you're comfortable with a discourse of such depth? Do you mean to take a Philosophical or Phenomenological stance?Be honest, you know what day it is?
14. Editha said...
Oh who cares? At least this woman is doing a useful job bringing up 6 kids. I'd rather the money was spent on her than paying bonuses to useless bankers.
15. mark wadsworth said...
As I was saying earlier, this is another argument for building more social housing - it works out a lot cheaper for Timmy Taxpayer.
16. mr g said...
Let me say at the outset that I'm no fan of the Express and in particular it's views on house prices.
However, does snobbery rear it's head in some of the comments whenever an article from the Express is posted?
Would the same subject published in the Guardian or Independent, (highly unlikely, I know), or even the Times provoke some of the comments above?
17. braindeed said...
10. mr g said...
"Would the same subject published in the Guardian or Independent, (highly unlikely, I know), or even the Times provoke some of the comments above?"
There was a time when Journalism was referred to as ‘The Fourth Estate’.
Where notions of Truth, Fact, Evidence, and Argument were bound to the very fabric of the paper, that the Newspapers were printed on.
ALL the remaining broadsheets pay at least lip-service to the creed of their journalistic forefathers.
The Express is populist low-brow loo roll pulp, …..Almost all the time.
Snobbery?.
No -Just a Phenomenological stance.
18. Jason said...
In the light of so much poverty in this country, some people are shameless and the government allowed hard working taxpayers to be taken for a ride. Disgusting.
19. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
20. righttoleech said...
'The Express'.....not my favourite paper, but I am surprised to see comments aimed against that organ rather than the despicable abuse of taxpayers money. The majority of people have to work extremely hard to receive a fraction of what this woman gets. Some of us have had our savings decimated and lost our jobs due to the current economic situation. What savings remain from a lifetimes work are being eroded to pay bills........and yes TAXES. FOR THIS.
21. letthemfall said...
This is merely receiving the going rate in the market, while contributing to the wealth of the country. The landlord of the mansion cleverly invested in this property and offered the let to a reliable source of income, thus improving economic efficiency. The lady saw a business opportunity and seized it through skill and natural acumen. She will also have seen that it was a far better opportunity than working for a bank, for which she would have been villified in _all_ the papers (except perhaps the Telegraph), as well as being subject to greater risk. Good luck to her I say. Any criticism is simply economic sour grapes.
22. Jason said...
economic sour grapes? Tell that two the thousands of kids in the UK (yes british kids born in this country) whose parents work 15 hours a day with no holiday or sick pay and can't even afford to buy them a new school uniform or have enougth money for a proper launch. The parents could just quit there jobs and just claim benefits. But some people have got chracter, diginity, pride and decency and will not sponge off other peoples' hard work. Can't believe how out of touch people are with what goes on in society. I know, cause I was one of thoose kids. I'd rather scarafice a nice house for basic living if the money saved could help others like me also get a basic standard of living.
23. Lucas said...
People, please stop going on about editorial policy, it should have been published in all the papers - Why? Because it is just plain wrong and the government over the last 13 years has done nothing to stop the benefits system from being exploited. Go to anywhere else in the world and this would not happen.