Number79 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Why should there be 40000 homeless when there are ONE MILLION empty properties? Exactly, they are not being made homeless they are being made to relocate to somewhere more reasonably priced for the taxpayer to fund. There is no telling how many ll's would reduce their rents to the new levels to keep their current tenants, probably not a lot but there will be some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 It's a very Dave idea, very Big Society. Yes he is a bit wet. This needs thatchers hand really, someone with the balls to just cut or stop the allowance and make people get on with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Why should there be 40000 homeless when there are ONE MILLION empty properties? What'll happen is the BTL'ers (not the professional landlords who have their heads screwed on) will believe that they'll be able to get asking price rents or closer to them from non-HB recipients, so will kick out the HB-recipients based on that belief. 6 months down the line a lot of em will find out how wrong they were and eventually they'll be forced to adjust their prices. But the market adjustment in rents charged will be gradual, while the change in HB payed will be instaneous. Its this difference that'll make the 40K or so homeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 The 40,000 or so lazy b*stards receiving housing benefit paid for with my hard earned cash to live in areas that I would never be able to afford to live in!! I think you'll find that about 75% of HB recipients do in fact work (a lot of the remaining 25% are pensioners). You really should ignore the right wing nutjob propoganda........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Yes he is a bit wet. This needs thatchers hand really, someone with the balls to just cut or stop the allowance and make people get on with it. balls and Thatchers hand is not something I want to think too much about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefCashier Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I think you'll find that about 75% of HB recipients do in fact work (a lot of the remaining 25% are pensioners). You really should ignore the right wing nutjob propoganda........ Completely wrong on HB recipients in work. Of the 4,869,040 Housing Benefit recipients in March 2011: - 776,200 were in employment (16%). You're closer to the mark regarding pensioners: - 1,276,590 HB recipients were aged 65 and over (26%) - 1,096,520 HB recipients are also in receipt of Pension Credit Guarantee Credit (22.5%) http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copydude Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Completely wrong on HB recipients in work. Of the 4,869,040 Housing Benefit recipients in March 2011: - 776,200 were in employment (16%). You're closer to the mark regarding pensioners: - 1,276,590 HB recipients were aged 65 and over (26%) - 1,096,520 HB recipients are also in receipt of Pension Credit Guarantee Credit (22.5%) http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb Maths is not my strong subject, but that almost implies that everyone who is unemployed receives Housing Benefit. (Total receivers minus employed and pensioners, compared to official numbers of unemployed.) I find this hard to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Maths is not my strong subject, but that almost implies that everyone who is unemployed receives Housing Benefit. (Total receivers minus employed and pensioners, compared to official numbers of unemployed.) I find this hard to believe. The majority of HB claimants certainly are not unemployed. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmworpen/writev/whitepap/uc29.htm 9. In tackling the problem of work incentives it is important not to promote the misconception that all benefit claimants are unemployed. In fact, 14% of HB claimants are working households who require additional support in order to meet their housing costs, and this rises to 26% among private tenants on LHA. [6] Only 12% (one in eight) of HB claimants are unemployed, the remainder being largely made up of pensioners (one in four), disabled people, and carers. [7] Many people just claim HB on a temporary basis, including people who have worked and paid their own rent all their lives and then face a sudden loss of income, due to sickness, bereavement or job loss and have to rely on benefits to meet their housing costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefCashier Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Maths is not my strong subject, but that almost implies that everyone who is unemployed receives Housing Benefit. (Total receivers minus employed and pensioners, compared to official numbers of unemployed.) I find this hard to believe. In addition to pensioners, the employed and the unemployed, there's another category to take into consideration - the working-age economically inactive (out of work and not actively jobseeking). The figures helpfully show that there are: - 1,323,800 HB recipients on Income Support (workless lone parents with young children, Incapacity Benefit claimants with Income Support top-up, and no doubt some carers in there as well); - 220,180 HB recipients who also get income-related Employment and Support Allowance. All of these groups would typically be classified as economically inactive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pauly_Boy Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Good posts ChiefCashier The scale of housing benefit and SMI is unbeileveable and it's something that needs to be tackled. The only ones that benefit are landlords as they get a fantastic yeild on their investment. Going forward I think we should return to house building, we spend over £20bn a year on housing, lets actually get something for our money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 there's nothing wrong with thew concept of basic housing benefits for the poor, but the current benefits are not basic - housing them in the most exclusive addresses in the country for free . The bare minimum accomodation should be covered - ie a small flat for a family or a room in a shared house for people without children, and in a cheap area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Sky News is reporting that The Observer has a leaked copy of a letter from Eric Pickles to Cameron that the Govt's cap on benefits will make 40,000 homeless. I wonder, is this a concern over the people who might be made homeless or concern for landlords? People who have Mortgages have fears about losing their home, they have to live within their means, lets get real why should anyone have the rent paid on a property they would not be able to afford if they were working, This whole housing benefits has got out of control, in some areas working people cannot afford the rents benifit claimants are paying to landlords. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Welfare-Reforms-Could-Leave-40000-Families-Homeless-The-PM-Is-Warned-By-Colleague-Says-Observer/Article/201107116023188?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_16023188_Welfare_Reforms_Could_Leave_40%2C000_Families_Homeless_The_PM_Is_Warned_By_Colleague%2C_Says_Observer article reads like a tory with BTL interests made the leak, Boris Johnson was the first tory to come out against it 6 months ago or whatever, same reason, BTLr friends/family Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 <br />What'll happen is the BTL'ers (not the professional landlords who have their heads screwed on) will believe that they'll be able to get asking price rents or closer to them from non-HB recipients, so will kick out the HB-recipients based on that belief.<br /><br />6 months down the line a lot of em will find out how wrong they were and eventually they'll be forced to adjust their prices. But the market adjustment in rents charged will be gradual, while the change in HB payed will be instaneous. Its this difference that'll make the 40K or so homeless.<br /><br /><br /><br />On the ball regarding the differentiation between BTLers and professional landlords. However, I fail to see how these 40,000 will be *unintentionly* homeless when they can just relocate to somewhere where their new housing benefit will afford them. Thankfully, Joe public is wising up to all the liberal heart string pulling propaganda being peddled out about families going to be made 'homeless'. The only ones that find themselves homeless will be ones of their own making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarman001 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 So obviously for landlords. Hell, if my parents were to pop it, I would be homeless due to high property prices! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 On the ball regarding the differentiation between BTLers and professional landlords. However, I fail to see how these 40,000 will be *unintentionly* homeless when they can just relocate to somewhere where their new housing benefit will afford them. Thankfully, Joe public is wising up to all the liberal heart string pulling propaganda being peddled out about families going to be made 'homeless'. The only ones that find themselves homeless will be ones of their own making. A person from Shelter was just on TV. It seems that taxpayers have the obligation to keep paying GBP 21 bn a year in HB to make sure that little Jane and Johnny don't have to change schools. Completely muddled thinking in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50sQuiff Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 A subsidy is being withdrawn giving the landlord the option of reducing the rent or forcing the tenant to locate to cheaper accommodation. And the Guardian calls this "being made homeless". The sophistry from these champagne socialist BTLers is pretty sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 <br />A person from Shelter was just on TV.<br /><br />It seems that taxpayers have the obligation to keep paying GBP 21 bn a year in HB to make sure that little Jane and Johnny don't have to change schools.<br /><br />Completely muddled thinking in my view.<br /><br /><br /><br />While I was of school age, we lived in Rugby, Nuneaton, Leamington Spa, Warwick and Coventry (not in that order and some more than once) mostly not through choice, but going where the work and affordability was. Off the top of my head, I think I went to about 4 or 5 primary/middle schools and I definitely went to 2 secondary schools. I suspect there are plenty of working families not in reciept of housing benefit making exactly the same choices we had to back then, this very day. To say that those in receipt of benefits shouldn't have to make the same sacrifices as those hard at work every day of the week, is testament to just how fvcked up this country has become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Roady Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 If I were the Tory prime minister who was head of a coalition Govt, I would have been ready for some compromise from the start. I would have conceded ground and done U turns on trivial things...non Tory vote winning issues. I would have used whatever stick I had to keep the Liberals in line. That stick was voting reform. It has now gone. Had that been voted for, the Liberals would have been a formidable enemy. They will be wiped off the map in the next election, they know it and Cameron knows it. IMHO, Cameron is now going to say that there have been enough U turns. The rhetoric will be “enough is enough”, “no more Mr Nice Guy” etc. This will win the Tory vote, sides will be taken. Left vs Right, Labour vs Conservative. We are nearing 1979 again. I think the Torys smell blood with the Liberals, and Labour. They have had enough of the Coalition. As far as HB is concerned, it will go because it has to go. We can no longer afford to pay people to do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I think you'll find that about 75% of HB recipients do in fact work (a lot of the remaining 25% are pensioners). You really should ignore the right wing nutjob propoganda........ so they should live in zone 6 and pay the overpriced Oyster like anybody else. Please do not waste my tax on your left wing social engineering! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) If I were the Tory prime minister who was head of a coalition Govt, I would have been ready for some compromise from the start. I would have conceded ground and done U turns on trivial things...non Tory vote winning issues. I would have used whatever stick I had to keep the Liberals in line. That stick was voting reform. It has now gone. Had that been voted for, the Liberals would have been a formidable enemy. They will be wiped off the map in the next election, they know it and Cameron knows it. IMHO, Cameron is now going to say that there have been enough U turns. The rhetoric will be "enough is enough", "no more Mr Nice Guy" etc. This will win the Tory vote, sides will be taken. Left vs Right, Labour vs Conservative. We are nearing 1979 again. I think the Torys smell blood with the Liberals, and Labour. They have had enough of the Coalition. As far as HB is concerned, it will go because it has to go. We can no longer afford to pay people to do nothing. Well then, they shouldnt have sold council homes created policies that affect the poorest should have build more social homes, yet the poorest are the ones that normally fight for this country. But its ok for MPS to have social homes is it? I really think most on this site have been brainwashed. Legal aid fees for David Cameron's older lawyer brother hushed up Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1R428H41K Edited July 3, 2011 by crash2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilroy Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Well then, they shouldnt have sold council homes created policies that affect the poorest should have build more social homes, yet the poorest are the ones that normally fight for this country. But its ok for MPS to have social homes is it? Sorry, but I thought labour were in power for 13 of the past 14 years...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50sQuiff Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 so they should live in zone 6 and pay the overpriced Oyster like anybody else. Please do not waste my tax on your left wing social engineering! Or they should live in the same shitbox Studio in Zone 2 that me and my OH endured until we could afford something better. Bleeding heart BTL *****ers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 While I was of school age, we lived in Rugby, Nuneaton, Leamington Spa, Warwick and Coventry (not in that order and some more than once) mostly not through choice, but going where the work and affordability was. Off the top of my head, I think I went to about 4 or 5 primary/middle schools and I definitely went to 2 secondary schools. I suspect there are plenty of working families not in reciept of housing benefit making exactly the same choices we had to back then, this very day. To say that those in receipt of benefits shouldn't have to make the same sacrifices as those hard at work every day of the week, is testament to just how fvcked up this country has become. Exactly. Yet another example of how people who take more from the state than they put in to it are made better off than those who put more into the state than they take from it. The balance between the "givers" and the "takers" needs to be redressed, both from a fairness and a financial point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Exactly. Yet another example of how people who take more from the state than they put in to it are made better off than those who put more into the state than they take from it. The balance between the "givers" and the "takers" needs to be redressed, both from a fairness and a financial point of view. ^^ brain washed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.