ah, it would appear the reason I failed to find a source was that it wasn’t true. Hardly a surprise…

Whats really sick is this is likely to be an ex council house now in the hands of profiteering private landlords.

or just one who has the balls to charge more 🙂 rent than you do? 😆

jonba – Member
ah, it would appear the reason I failed to find a source was that it wasn’t true. Hardly a surprise…

That’s not the first time I’ve heard that today so don’t worry! There’s been some spinning going on.

Hmm, we (2+3 kids) live on about £26k a year, two earning, grace n favour house and tax credits all added up into one. Somehow we feed, clothe, go on a holiday, run a car etc. Heck, I even run a bike and a canoe. It is not easy, and we watch the pennies.
Now we use our cunning – house swaps for holidays, second hand clothes for kids etc, but we also buy good quality clothes; eat well with as much organic, local, ‘good’ food as possible. We have been given a second car, we watch an ancient telly and second had DVD; buy second hand furniture and look after the ageing sofa’s. Our mobile contract is £5 for a basic phone a month, not bling etc etc.
But it works.
I do think that there are two fundamental issues causing problems:
1) Lack of affordable housing for families (much related to ‘house blocking’ IMO by those who should downsize or head off out of social housing, and by the fact that we sold off most most of the house a few years back (se TJ’s post).
2) Looking at priorities in people’s life – our old school in Sheffield used to have kids come in having not eaten breakfast as the parent ‘couldn’t afford the food’ – yet same parent was stinking of alchohol each morning…I work with people who are skint, but have blinging iPhone, who don’t look after thier stuff brilliantly and wonder why they need to change it more often. etc etc.

If i were made redundnet and got a job that pays less well than my current employment then i would have to move to reduce costs.

You’d probably get housing benefit to enable you to stay where you are.

Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street. He said this was “very misleading”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty

Misleading it may be but it is very clearly worded.

I’m not silly enough to try and make you change your mind.

I don’t think that benefits are a great lifestyle choice by any means.

I do think it’s ridiculous to stand by arguments regarding keeping people in the village they grew up in and paying silly rents to do so.

Why?

Because, they’re further away from where jobs and services are and they’re not served by decent transport links, they’re effectively in a benefits trap.
Plus, every person not on benefits has had to move to local towns where they can afford to rent or buy.

TSY – thats a tiny proportion of people – its families in the cities that will be affected mainly.

Have a read of this to see just how silly it is

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/22/housing-benefit-cap-62p-a-day

Richpenny – Member
Well apart from the fact that your other family might live there. And your friends. And your kids friends. And their schools. Nothing at all

Yes it is a shame But you simply have to go where the work is Do you not!
or are you a believer of sitting on your Arss and waiting for the right bus to stop ?

Torminalis – Member
‘Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street. He said this was “very misleading”.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty

Misleading it may be but it is very clearly worded.

That’s not the definition though, it doesn’t mention sharing bedrooms FFS. Overcrowding means people using kitchens, living rooms any space in the house as a place to sleep.

The Southern Yeti – Member

I do think it’s ridiculous to stand by arguments regarding keeping people in the village they grew up in and paying silly rents to do so.

How many people does that apply to though? You’re aware of 1?

Grantway – its probably where the work is as well – look at some of those Guardian links.

The people who this will affect mainly are families in the cities that have buoyant economies thus high rentals. they will be foreced to either move into overcrowded accomodation or to move to places with no work prospects.

The Southern Yeti – Member
Now I’m as limp wristed and liberal as the next man, but…

Why should someone on benefits get their rent paid in the lovely rural village in Oxfordshire that most can’t afford to buy in?

Why should the kids of a hardworking family have to share a bedroom because their parents can’t afford to move but those on benefits get upgraded automatically?

Why should having more and more kids entitle you to more and more money?

Why does the benefits system as it stands make me feel like a **** Tory?

I agree with the above

Calm down dear, I am not saying it was right. IDS clearly mentioned it to get the propaganda ball rolling and to win some of the hearts and minds of Middle England.

I reckon this bill would have massive public support, a relative small number of people would be forced to leave their homes, there was a clear mention of dispensation for special cases which appeared to mean there was a discretionary element to it. I reckon they are merely equipping the benefits officers with a bigger stick which is no bad thing.

That 62p per day thing is crazy and wrong.
It starts of with £500 per week and then takes £400+ off for a weeks rent …..no wonder theres on 62p left over.
Sorry but average rent for a nice 3bed semi in Leeds is £700 per month. Leeds has job prospects and decent education.
Tax payers in the north should not be subsidising expensive london rents.

Fair dues TeeJ, I did get distracted by the green Kit-Kat but the article makes sense… in summary the benefits system as it stands is not fair and surprise, surprise Georgies plan will make it even less so.

Lifer – I don’t know a great many people on benefits TBH, so it’s a pretty high % of the people on benfits I know. You’ve got to do a lot of convincing to make me believe that a benefits system that allows someone on them to be able to afford things that a worker can’t.

TandemJeremy – Member
Grantway – its probably where the work is as well – look at some of those Guardian links.

The people who this will affect mainly are families in the cities that have buoyant economies thus high rentals. they will be foreced to either move into overcrowded accomodation or to move to places with no work prospects.

I agree on some of what you are saying But If it was myself I would move to a cheaper area
of London, this is where I’m from.
But still being able to travel to get work, would you not?

Torminalis – only if you think a hundred thousand families is a relatively small number – these are the people who will be forced into some very unpleasant choices by this.

CHB – so every unemployed family in London should be forced to move? Even if they have kids at school there, good prospects for a job there in the future?

Being a bit more right of centre than I used to be, I thought that the benefit cap was a good thing. And I guess I still do but then I got the thinking.

They set the cap at £26,000 because that it the mean average income for UK households. All good so far.

But then it occurred to me that this average household, with average income, still get child benefit and thus their income is more than £35,000.

And more pertinently, you could have a house hold with an income from two adults of almost £80,000 and they would still be eligible for child benefit.

How is that fair? I still can’t believe that we get child benefit; I mean it’s completely ridiculous given our household income.

If you’re going to have a benefit cap, then it should be a cap on all benefits above that level for everyone, not just those on benefits.

Yunki..TJ.. I’m afraid it’s you who are deluded.

I have a sister playing the system in exactly the same way as previously mentioned.

Not only does she and her husband live in a very nice 5 bed house with their seven kids, but they have three holidays a year. Florida, Canaries and newquay. They’ve been doing the same (visiting the same holiday spots) for years.

She’s able bodies, in her mid fortys yet has never worked, her husband works 16 hours a week (thats just enough to qualify for the tax/child credits yet keep the work agency off their back).

They have two cars, both less than 3 years old.

They have every game console going.. all the kids have their own laptops plus spare desktop systems.

This is not a one off.. it’s endemic around these parts. Until people like you lift your head out of the guardian and start to face the fact it’s happening, you doom the whole welfare system to failure, as it cant carry on like this.

Ta TSY

Grantway – there simply is not enough cheap accomodation.

elzorillo

She must be fiddling bigtime or thats just bullshit. I know what the benefit levels are like.

Why should someone on benefits get their rent paid in the lovely rural village in Oxfordshire that most can’t afford to buy in?

I really really don’t think that is how it works..

If you’re going to have a benefit cap, then it should be a cap on all benefits above that level for everyone, not just those on benefits.

It seems your missing the point, this is the maximum benefits paid to a household. They could still work and receive benefits to push them above the £26k mark. If you don’t work then you will only get the £26k per house hold. Well that’s in the simplest terms anyway.

TJ. Ultimately yes, I do think people should not be funded by the state to live in areas where an AVERAGE working person could not afford.
I have kids and I appreciate the disruption that adopting this swiftly would cause and so I think it should be phased in with support over 3 years or so (that would mean that GCSE years etc could be avoided if school moves are involved).

These are real choices made by real people every day, kids get moved from schools and from one house to another for many reasons. It is not the role of the state to insulate the unemployed to an extent that folk who work do not enjoy themselves.

TJ But there are cheaper parts than others all over the UK
and yes the selling off of Council housing was the biggest mistake
But Thatcher done that to control the striking working class at that time.

It seems your missing the point,

No I get what you’re saying and what the government is saying. But my point is that if you’re going to argue that it’s fair to limit the payments to the mean household income, then it’s not fair to pay it to households with above the mean.

Yunki – sadly, maybe only in a very small number of cases, it does… £300k house being rented out to a non-working single parent family. Very good over-subscribed primary school in the village too.

Edit

CHB – I see you talk of a 3 year transition – thats fine then IMO.

this proposal has no transition attached .

Yunki..TJ.. I’m afraid it’s you who are deluded.

I have a sister playing the system in exactly the same way as previously mentioned.

I think that you’re wrong.. I cannot see a way where you can have a luxury lifestyle paid for purely by legitimately claiming the benefits that you are entitled to..

the maths does not add up..

maybe I’m missing something here.. 😕

only if you think a hundred thousand families is a relatively small number

I heard it was half that, and in the context of a nation of 70 million people, that is a reasonably small number. Especially when it is predicted that those families will be losing an average of £93 per week each. That would hurt but most would weather it so in reality, I reckon it would be a whole lot less.

No Tandem But something really has to be done.

Me personally i would like to see the Government start doing
building programs that included the jobless and give them apprenticeships
and i would be happy if they was given a little more just has when I had
my apprenticeship when learning my trade.

This does not include the £ 26k

£300k house being rented out to a non-working single parent family.

what’s their rent though..?

elzorillo

She must be fiddling bigtime or thats just bullshit. I know what the benefit levels are like.

Why do you insist on calling everyone who knows facts that differ you your view of the world as liars?

They play the system.. maybe they play it well, but they’re committing no crime.

You want more examples?..

Another guy I know is 48.. never worked.. faked a bad back his whole life.. Nice new car paid for by mobility.. Nice house in the country.. Recently got a grant from somewhere for £32k to build an extension (downstairs bedroom and walk in shower) as he ‘cant’ get upstairs easily.. Really a very nice computer room with 50″ screen for his nighttime hobby of playing games.. Crazy bit.. as it’s a grant, he owns the extension and if he ever leaves the council run property then the council have to BUY the extension from him.

Spends his daytime breeding koi and birds of prey.

I have many more.. as I said it’s endemic here. Of course you have the right to call me a liar and pretend it doesnt happen.

yunki – Member

Why should someone on benefits get their rent paid in the lovely rural village in Oxfordshire that most can’t afford to buy in?

I really really don’t think that is how it works..

Well, my parents still live in the council house I grew up in in a very desireable part of rural Derbyshire/Peak District. I would struggle to buy a house there of any decent size.

My parents never worked when I was young – not particularly because they were lazy, but by their own admission, it simply wasn’t worth it. They were much better off on the dole.

Now they weren’t your stereotypical family of benefit scroungers. Only one kid (me) until my half sister came along when I was 16, very keen on keeping a lovely garden and living a carefree lifestyle – basically a pair of old hippies. We didn’t have a rich lifestyle either and I’ve no idea how much they claimed.

As a kid I was slightly embarrassed by it and now I’m slightly annoyed by it. The system needs to be changed, but simply ‘capping’ probably isn’t a solution – it is a start though.

ok..

I’m out

living in a council property in the countryside is now wrong..?
cos the house may be worth bucks..?

bucks to who..? some nob from the city..?
what’s the argument here..?

I think I misunderstood and thought people were getting cross about housing benefit paying high rents..?

I’m getting wound up because like MMB above.. me and my family work pissing hard for a low income (way below the averages being thrown around here) but we get by..
because of our low income we live in a modest housing association property with a low rent which subsidised by a very small amount of benefit..

our place is in a rural area near to our family which may make it worth a few bucks to someone..

what are we doing that’s objectionable here..?

why has someone with some high paying job got more right to live in a rural area..?

I think there is a severe problem with people confusing wealth and worth..

😆

3 year transition sounds like an excellent idea. We should all tweet our MP.

elzorillo –

to get that much money they are committing crimes – benefit fraud.

You need to know just how much money benefits are – no life of luxury on benefits without major fraud.

Its a simple fact that a life on benefits does not give people what you claim. I am not calling yo a liar – I am saying that you have missed the major fraud that must be going on to get that much money.

I am not pretending that people on benefits are not rich – its the truth

go and look at how much benefits actually are

Well, it’s more than anyone at Singletrack earns…