# Bedroom tax! Where will this robbing the poor stop?



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*"The cut will be a fixed percentage of the Housing Benefit eligible rent. The Government has said that this will be set at 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two or more extra bedrooms.

The Governments impact assessment shows that those affected will lose an average of £14 a week. Housing association tenants are expected to lose £16 a week on average."
*

*I just don't understand the logic here.How can they just keep taking money from those that have the least?*


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

I thought this only applied to underoccupiers? People in mums area of London have started getting letters about it already.

My mum is looking forward to it...
The council where she is have offered a premium to those who give up larger flats and houses and downsize..
Mum has been wanting to for ages but long waiting lists and the cost of moving and re-setting up house put her off,,
Now she says she will jump at the chance to trade in her draughty 3 bed house for a nice 1 bed flat no more stairs, much less cleaning she says it will do her the world of good. Plus the premium they pay will help her pay for carpet and curtains in the new place.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

My friend has a three bedroom house and she is scared she wont be able to afford to live there now 
She has lived in the village all her life , her friends and everything she knows is here , yet the council want to move her to a one bedroom flat in town 

And its like she says , she often has her son and grandson to stay , how can she do that in a one bedroom flat


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

Remember when my Nana gave up her 3 bedroom ed house and moved in to an old people's bungalow it was 2 bedrooms which most are around here so in effect what they are saying is if you are old we will deduct you more benefit or move you a long way from family and they won't be able to call around and help you and it will cost the government more to put in place a care package that will cost us a lot more than14/16 for that extra bedroom we say you shouldn't have and when your family do visit they won't be able to stay because you won't have the room!!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Mese said:


> My friend has a three bedroom house and she is scared she wont be able to afford to live there now
> She has lived in the village all her life , her friends and everything she knows is here , yet the council want to move her to a one bedroom flat in town
> 
> And its like she says , she often has her son and grandson to stay , how can she do that in a one bedroom flat


I know this sounds harsh but why should she receive extra money so she can have guests?

Social housing is just that, it's not a permanent home & people have to expect to move when there needs no longer justfy their accommodation. Why should a single person receive money to fund a house that is too big for them?

I could only afford a one bed flat for years so all my guests had to sleep on the sofa. Why should people on benefits not have to to make do & adjust to suit their means just as everyone else has to :confused1:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

skip said:


> Remember when my Nana gave up her 3 bedroom ed house and moved in to an old people's bungalow it was 2 bedrooms which most are around here so in effect what they are saying is if you are old we will deduct you more benefit or move you a long way from family and they won't be able to call around and help you and it will cost the government more to put in place a care package that will cost us a lot more than14/16 for that extra bedroom we say you shouldn't have and when your family do visit they won't be able to stay because you won't have the room!!


*My understanding ( and i may be wrong),is that those over retirement age won't have to pay the extra.*


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

dorrit said:


> I thought this only applied to underoccupiers? People in mums area of London have started getting letters about it already.
> 
> My mum is looking forward to it...
> The council where she is have offered a premium to those who give up larger flats and houses and downsize..
> ...


My in laws who all live in London are benefiting from this. The flat offered is amazing. Their old fashioned 1950's house is being modernised and given to a family that need it. The needs of a more mature couple whose children have flown the nest are being met. No huge garden to manage but a nice little area, off road parking, no struggling to find a spot on the kerbside. But at the same time still in a vibrant community. They are quids up!


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *My understanding ( and i may be wrong),is that those over retirement age won't have to pay the extra.*


I hope you're right


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

skip said:


> I hope you're right


*"Those over State Pension Credit age will not be affected, including where one 
member of a couple is over."
Bedroom Tax - National Housing Federation*


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

It does make sense when you really think about it.All those people with 2 or more kids looking for a house 3 or more bedroomed.Your not gonna get one unless someone moves out to suit their housing needs.One person in a 3bedroomed house, even though they have lived in there for along time and dont want to give it up.
You could always buy the house if you didnt want to give it up lol


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> I know this sounds harsh but why should she receive extra money so she can have guests?
> 
> Social housing is just that, it's not a permanent home & people have to expect to move when there needs no longer justfy their accommodation. Why should a single person receive money to fund a house that is too big for them?
> 
> I could only afford a one bed flat for years so all my guests had to sleep on the sofa. Why should people on benefits not have to to make do & adjust to suit their means just as everyone else has to :confused1:


Or there are people like me who moved to a two bedroomed house instead of a three bedroomed, so my brother couldn't inflict himself on her for the weekend!

I have nothing against people having to change to a smaller place; they would probably downsize anyway if they had their own houses, so long as they are not forced to take whatever is offered. Someone who only needs room for one but has, like me, a couple of dogs should not be forced to take a flat with no garden. If they are going to rearrange people, they must take pets into account as well.

Sometimes you still see very old buildings with the windows bricked up which came from the window tax imposed by William and Mary. Perhaps they will re-instate that one next!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> Or there are people like me who moved to a two bedroomed house instead of a three bedroomed, so my brother couldn't inflict himself on her for the weekend!
> 
> I have nothing against people having to change to a smaller place; they would probably downsize anyway if they had their own houses, so long as they are not forced to take whatever is offered. Someone who only needs room for one but has, like me, a couple of dogs should not be forced to take a flat with no garden. If they are going to rearrange people, they must take pets into account as well.
> 
> Sometimes you still see very old buildings with the windows bricked up which came from the window tax imposed by William and Mary. Perhaps they will re-instate that one next!


*God i hope Cameron doesn't read this. I'm sure he would do it given the chance.*


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

We downsized a couple of years ago from 3 to 2 bedrooms we work and don't claim anything but obviously don't know what the future holds and I'm sure as hell not going to be forced to move to some hell hole if and when the time comes I'd rather loose money than do that. Will they rebate the money people have spent improving the properties and gardens because the council are not good at repairs,took them 6 months of written complaints to fix our bedroom windows so they would actually close


----------



## Sarah+Hammies (Jul 20, 2009)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> It does make sense when you really think about it.All those people with 2 or more kids looking for a house 3 or more bedroomed.Your not gonna get one unless someone moves out to suit their housing needs.One person in a 3bedroomed house, even though they have lived in there for along time and dont want to give it up.
> You could always buy the house if you didnt want to give it up lol


This is the way I see it! My mother in law occupies a 4 bedroom council house with her boyfriend, no one else lives there. She has never used all of the bedrooms and now she uses the rooms to hoard junk. The council have offered her a premium and the cost of moving to downsize to a 1 or 2 bed house or flat (keep in mind a 2 bed property is still bigger than her need) and she has decided that it is 'her' house why should she move!?

I know of at least 4 families out of my own friends who have been made to cram into a tiny 1 or 2 bed until a 4 bed becomes available as they are few and far between.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> I know this sounds harsh but why should she receive extra money so she can have guests?
> 
> Social housing is just that, it's not a permanent home & people have to expect to move when there needs no longer justfy their accommodation. Why should a single person receive money to fund a house that is too big for them?
> 
> I could only afford a one bed flat for years so all my guests had to sleep on the sofa. *Why should people on benefits not have to to make do* & adjust to suit their means just as everyone else has to :confused1:


A council (or HA) property is not always paid for by benefits, some tenants do actually have jobs, and trust me, they aint always cheap, we rent a 2 bedroom HA bungalow, the rent is £92/week, the rates are £1100 a year,


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> A council (or HA) property is not always paid for by benefits, some tenants do actually have jobs, and trust me, they aint always cheap, we rent a 2 bedroom HA bungalow, the rent is £92/week, the rates are £1100 a year,


*I'm glad you raised that point.Imagine working for years and spending all that money on your home only to be told you have to move out or pay even more rent.*


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

As far as I understand its been brought in to match what people who rent from the private sector but claim housing benefit claim. If you rent privately the council will only give you money to cover the rent of the size house you need. For me I get the rate appropriate to a two bedroom allowance as my children are under 10 and are different genders they are meant to share a room. I however have a 3 bed and pay the difference (don't get the full allowance anyway as we do work). I'm lucky that my rent is not much more then most 2 bed in my area and some are actually more expensive then mine. 

I think it's right the council do this. I have a friend who is crammed into a small flat in a horrible area with her 3 children and husband because no bigger houses are avaliable.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

I hear people saying they know people crammed in to small places in horrible areas, its the horrible areas that can hold a lot of people back from moving (downsizing), it certainly would with me


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

Sarah+Hammies said:


> This is the way I see it! My mother in law occupies a 4 bedroom council house with her boyfriend, no one else lives there. She has never used all of the bedrooms and now she uses the rooms to hoard junk. The council have offered her a premium and the cost of moving to downsize to a 1 or 2 bed house or flat (keep in mind a 2 bed property is still bigger than her need) and she has decided that it is 'her' house why should she move!?
> 
> I know of at least 4 families out of my own friends who have been made to cram into a tiny 1 or 2 bed until a 4 bed becomes available as they are few and far between.


Its her house but really shes renting it from the council.If she doesnt want to move out she could always buy the property.I just feel for people who have 3 or more kids living in a 2bedroomed house.Where do they go from there? There only hope is private renting.If nobody is willing to move then i think the council will step up and make people.
We moved out of a larger council house and downsized but got a bigger garden and a nicer area.We have had to throw alot of stuff out.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

There is an old couple down the road from me that have a 4 bedroom home and refuse too move,perhaps this will sort it out so that a family can live there,preferably a nice one.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> It does make sense when you really think about it.All those people with 2 or more kids looking for a house 3 or more bedroomed.Your not gonna get one unless someone moves out to suit their housing needs.One person in a 3bedroomed house, even though they have lived in there for along time and dont want to give it up.
> You could always buy the house if you didnt want to give it up lol


How can they buy it if they are on benefits? 

I personally think the people claiming benefits with no disabled or elderly in the household should start living in the real world we all have to struggle in.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

rona said:


> How can they buy it if they are on benefits?
> 
> I personally think the people claiming benefits with no disabled or elderly in the household should start living in the real world we all have to struggle in.


She might get a job after lol then look into buying :thumbsup: If she really wants the house and doesnt want to move


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I think this will affect my sister big time. The council built a 5 bedroom house for her, none they had were suitable so built one instead. At the time she had 6 children at home and the eldest is very severely disabled she needs 24 hour care (provided solely by my sister she gets no help). So downstairs is specially adapted, extra wide doors for wheelchair access and bedroom/bathroom with special lifts etc. 3 daughters have their own homes now, eldest son looking to get his own place and youngest hoping to join the army early next year.

So that will leave her with a high under occupancy, council will not move her though because of the cost of alterating another property.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

There's a couple who live in our street they have 3 kids in a 2 bedroomed house not one of them have any intentions of going to work.
Bone idle i'd call it.
How can people just sit there and twiddle their thumbs.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> I think this will affect my sister big time. The council built a 5 bedroom house for her, none they had were suitable so built one instead. At the time she had 6 children at home and the eldest is very severely disabled she needs 24 hour care (provided solely by my sister she gets no help). So downstairs is specially adapted, extra wide doors for wheelchair access and bedroom/bathroom with special lifts etc. 3 daughters have their own homes now, eldest son looking to get his own place and youngest hoping to join the army early next year.
> 
> So that will leave here with a high under occupancy, council will not move her though because of the cost of alterating another property.


That will be the same for my inlaws when both the daughters leave home. The house had a downstairs ramp, bedroom and wet room added a few years ago for their father. There are two bedrooms upstairs that he cannot access but his wife can.
Hopefully it won't apply to them


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

i live in a council flat. me and my husband share a 1 bed flat, so we wouldnt have to move, im also not planning for kids for years to come so shouldnt have to move until then. i also live with 28 rats, so if i did move it would have to be one that takes pets. i would love a 2 bed flat so i could ahve a rat room but i know unless i buy thats not going to happen. i dont recieve benefits for any bills, i pay the £94.12 rent per week for my 1 bed flat.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> There's a couple who live in our street they have 3 kids in a 2 bedroomed house not one of them have any intentions of going to work.
> Bone idle i'd call it.
> How can people just sit there and twiddle their thumbs.


*Your missing the point.This isn't about bone idle people.I just hate all people being tarred with the same brush.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

This is probably going to make me VERY unpopular but I really don't care!

Why do people who are on benefits think they have a RIGHT to moan about the HANDOUTS they get??? Surely they should be grateful that they live in a country where there is such a facility.

So benefits are being cut - well hey, guess what - there's a great big feckin' hole in the UK's financial pocket and there is more money going out of the pot than there is going in! Something needs to give.

You can't expect working people to pay more income tax because they will stop working as they can't afford to do so and so the money going out of the pot increases. You can't batter the motorists any more for the same reason. They stop driving, less tax is paid, even less money again going into the pot.

People who wish to moan about the quality of the UK's welfare programme would do well to remember that it is still a HELL of a lot better than that of many other countries. If it wasn't, every man and his foreign dog would not be clamouring to come and live here.

The majority of people who are working get sod all benefit, of any sort, and I'm sorry but it really pisses me off when those who do get it do nothing but moan the whole time!!!


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

Sometimes i think the council needs to get off there ar** and actually do things to improve our lifestyle.
I only learned the other week that council are charging older people for mowing their lawns. i thought they did it for free.
And they are putting up 3ft fences and not 6ft anymore.And thats the councils decision not ours.
People would just be able to jump over your garden fence when they felt like it, there would be no privacy.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rona said:


> That will be the same for my inlaws when both the daughters leave home. The house had a downstairs ramp, bedroom and wet room added a few years ago for their father. There are two bedrooms upstairs that he cannot access but his wife can.
> Hopefully it won't apply to them


When it first came out sure it was mentioned would not affect people in receipt of certain benefits. Don't know what its actually called but sister will be getting whatever full time carers get and niece whatever maximum disability benefit is but looking at the link earlier in this thread doesn't seem to say that at all.

Seems fair to me if suitable alternatives are offered - you have the option to move or turn it down and have to pay more - but if no other accommodation is offered it seems terribly unjust


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Bjt said:


> There is an old couple down the road from me that have a 4 bedroom home and refuse too move,perhaps this will sort it out so that a family can live there,preferably a nice one.


dream on, how many "welfare" tenants with school age kids are "nice"...

im my experience they cant afford rent but they have Sky TV and whaccy baccy every night


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Your missing the point.This isn't about bone idle people.I just hate all people being tarred with the same brush.*


This is a couple that will not ever work cuz they cant be bothered, they feel with the money they get off the government thats the right amount to live off.So they have no need to work.I feel this is wrong.
I feel for couples or single people who want to work but cannot get into it.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> When it first came out sure it was mentioned would not affect people in receipt of certain benefits. Don't know what its actually called but sister will be getting whatever full time carers get and niece whatever maximum disability benefit is but looking at the link earlier in this thread doesn't seem to say that at all.
> 
> Seems fair to me if suitable alternatives are offered - you have the option to move or turn it down and have to pay more - but if no other accommodation is offered it seems terribly unjust


*When you get people that only have £20 a week to live on,how on earth are they expected to pay this extra money?
2 other points i'd like to mention are these.
Firstly, where are they going to get all the 1 bedroom places that will be needed.
And secondly,if you ( not you personly) have children and they move out of the family home,then need to come back home,where do they go?*


----------



## Diesel the Crazy Dal (Jun 11, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> dream on, how many "welfare" tenants with school age kids are "nice"...
> 
> im my experience they cant afford rent but they have Sky TV and whaccy baccy every night


Not everyone is the same, i have 3 kids of my own and a step son currently but i was a single mum for years. I worked full time but i lost my job at one point and became homeless - i could not get a place from the council at all and it was only temporary.

Sure there are bad people who take advantage of the benefits system but that is not exclusive to people with kids


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> dream on, how many "welfare" tenants with school age kids are "nice"...
> 
> im my experience they cant afford rent but they have Sky TV and whaccy baccy every night


Bit of a sweeping statement - how many do you personally know? And I mean actually know, not read about in the papers or idle gossip? Not everyone in social housing is on benefits anyway, just low incomes so cannot get a mortgage.

P.S. My sister doesn't have sky, doesn't smoke whaccy baccy either she has asthma


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> This is probably going to make me VERY unpopular but I really don't care!
> 
> Why do people who are on benefits think they have a RIGHT to moan about the HANDOUTS they get??? Surely they should be grateful that they live in a country where there is such a facility.
> 
> ...


I can see that your angry  you do have a point.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> dream on, how many "welfare" tenants with school age kids are "nice"...
> 
> im my experience they cant afford rent but they have Sky TV and whaccy baccy every night





DoodlesRule said:


> Bit of a sweeping statement - how many do you personally know? And I mean actually know, not read about in the papers or idle gossip? Not everyone in social housing is on benefits anyway, just low incomes so cannot get a mortgage.


Regrettfully, there are quite a few in the street where I live and the surrounding areas. The worst one used to live opposite me but she managed to get a nice new council house on the other side of town and so has moved out. I could tell you tales of that family that would make your pretty hair curl but, to be honest, thinking about them winds me up SO much I try to avoid doing so if I can.

I _KNOW_ there are very genuine cases of hardship but, unfortunately, there are many more chancers who take the benefits system for everything they can by lying through their teeth and being lazy, good-for-nothing wee sh!tes.

A sad fact but a true one.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> This is probably going to make me VERY unpopular but I really don't care!
> 
> Why do people who are on benefits think they have a RIGHT to moan about the HANDOUTS they get??? Surely they should be grateful that they live in a country where there is such a facility.
> 
> ...


Pity these aren't made to do their bit 
Special Report: How Starbucks avoids UK taxes | Reuters


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> This is probably going to make me VERY unpopular but I really don't care!
> 
> Why do people who are on benefits think they have a RIGHT to moan about the HANDOUTS they get??? Surely they should be grateful that they live in a country where there is such a facility.
> 
> ...


I can see your point , we don't claim benefits and both work but what would happen if one of us lost our jobs and had to claim benefits until we found a another job, I personally don't think it would be fair to expect us to move after all we've paid in to the pot since leaving school


----------



## niki (Jan 14, 2009)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> Sometimes i think the council needs to get off there ar** and actually do things to improve our lifestyle.
> I only learned the other week that council are charging older people for mowing their lawns. i thought they did it for free.
> And they are putting up 3ft fences and not 6ft anymore.And thats the councils decision not ours.
> People would just be able to jump over your garden fence when they felt like it, there would be no privacy.


You want a 6ft fence then you buy your own! I know our local housing association doesn't put fences up at all. You would have to if you owned your own home.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

skip said:


> I can see your point , we don't claim benefits and both work but what would happen if one of us lost our jobs and had to claim benefits until we found a another job, I personally don't think it would be fair to expect us to move after all we've paid in to the pot since leaving school


That means nothing. When I was homeless after 16 years of paying into the pot they said tough


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

skip said:


> I can see your point , we don't claim benefits and both work but what would happen if one of us lost our jobs and had to claim benefits until we found a another job, I personally don't think it would be fair to expect us to move after all we've paid in to the pot since leaving school


My gripe is not with the benefits system, or who is receiving it. My gripe is with those who GET these benefits but still moan about every little thing to do with them. Too many benefit recipients live under the belief that they are 'entitled' to them rather than realising they are fortunate to get them.

They whinge about the Government cuts but forget that, if it were not for the Governments insisting on keeping the welfare state, they'd be a lot worse off because the vast majority of the workers would NOT give money to support them if they had a choice in the matter.

If the govt were to turn round and say they were scrapping the welfare system and halving income tax, so that the working people of the country could donate to the needy instead, the needy would REALLY then understand just how lucky they currently are because hardly anyone would donate or donate enough.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

niki said:


> You want a 6ft fence then you buy your own! I know our local housing association doesn't put fences up at all. You would have to if you owned your own home.


The council USE TO put 6ft fences up.
They were going to put a 3ft fence at the side of ours at the back UNTIL i moaned my bag off, so they ended up putting a 4ft fence there instead.
IF you dont ask you dont get thats my motto.
Yes we will be putting our own fences up because you cant rely on the council getting the job done propery.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> My gripe is not with the benefits system, or who is receiving it. My gripe is with those who GET these benefits but still moan about every little thing to do with them. Too many benefit recipients live under the belief that they are 'entitled' to them rather than realising they are fortunate to get them.
> 
> They whinge about the Government cuts but forget that, if it were not for the Governments insisting on keeping the welfare state, they'd be a lot worse off because the vast majority of the workers would NOT give money to support them if they had a choice in the matter.
> 
> If the govt were to turn round and say they were scapping the welfare system and halving income tax so, that the working people of the country could donate to the needy instead, the needy would REALLY then understand just how lucky they currently are because harldy anyone would donate or donate enough.


*Firstly some of those on benefits have every right to moan when they see different rules for different people.
Secondly,if they were not entitled to them,under the rules,then they wouldn't be getting them.Unless you are tarring all on benefits with the same brush.*


----------



## niki (Jan 14, 2009)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> The council USE TO put 6ft fences up.
> They were going to put a 3ft fence at the side of ours at the back UNTIL i moaned my bag off, so they ended up putting a 4ft fence there instead.
> IF you dont ask you dont get thats my motto.


But you didnt ask, you moaned and quite a lot by the sounds of it.

Councils USED to do a lot of things until they had their budgets stripped. I think your very lucky to be given any fence of any height but then to 'moan your bag off' is just bloody cheeky imo. You can't complain over a freebie.

What would you rather have.... Everybody having a 3ft fence, or a 6ft fence with a weekly rent increase to cover the cost of everyone's new fences!

This is exactly the problem, so many people think they're entitled to whatever they damn well please.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Mrs Moggybaby, you couldn't be unpopular with me if you tried 

As a very naive 17 year old my sis left home with a very vile man, didn't see her for another 17 years. If the benefit system had not allowed him to sit on his fat evil backside for years and paid him loads of money to produce lots of children throwing money at him to encourage him to procrate more (there are another half dozen or so by other women) she wouldn't be in the mess she ended up. Now that she is what the majority would class as a genuine case there is no help any more. I couldn't live her life for all the tea in china


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

niki said:


> You want a 6ft fence then you buy your own! I know our local housing association doesn't put fences up at all. You would have to if you owned your own home.


But we dont own it, the council do, we will pay rent FOREVER (not just 25 years) as we wont have money spare to save and buy a house, rents only ever rise (7% last year) a mortgage should be far less at its end than at its start...

and before you say it

no, we cant buy at a huge discount, our council created its own housing association and passed all stock and tenants over so they cant be forced to sell to tenants..


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

niki said:


> But you didnt ask, you moaned and quite a lot by the sounds of it.
> 
> Councils USED to do a lot of things until they had their budgets stripped. I think your very lucky to be given any fence of any height but then to 'moan your bag off' is just bloody cheeky imo. You can't complain over a freebie.
> 
> ...


I moaned my bag off when i lived next door to a druggy and the other side of me there was a drunk.I think if i and a few other neighbours hadnt have moaned nothing would be done to shift these people.And we had to go to court to do that, also being the council's witness in all of this.And because of this we were moved to a nice place.
Imagine a drunk and his mates banging on your 3yr old sons bedroom wall every night just to provoke his parents.Im just gonna let them do it and not complain to the council.....yeah
And the druggy next door, her younger son killing a baby squirrel.Im just going to let it lie.
I believe in doing something to change ways of life.

Plus my partner works full time btw before you start making judgements.

We pay the rent we and alot of other people deserve a 6ft fence for privacy.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Firstly some of those on benefits have every right to moan when they see different rules for different people.*


You are right there. A teenage girl I know with diabetes which she can manage fine herself, as she is eighteen, and doesn't really affect her everyday life, gets the middle care rate of DLA "in case she needs someone".

My son, who is brain damaged, and cannot be left for any length of time, always needs someone there in case he needs help, like getting to the railway station last week and finding nobody at the ticket office. He can't use the machine because he cannot read and he does not know one bank note from another. Nor can he press the right buttons if he uses his card. So he phoned me and I had to drive over and get him his ticket.

This is the sort of thing that happens a few times a week, but he is only entitled to the lower rate of DLA, the same as a 24 year old I know who goes clubbing in London, runs her mum's business when she is on holiday when she stays in the house on her own, and is learning to drive. In fact that is nothing wrong with her except she is not very bright.

Yes, that is the sort of thing that makes us moan.


----------



## niki (Jan 14, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> But we dont own it, the council do, we will pay rent FOREVER (not just 25 years) as we wont have money spare to save and buy a house, rents only ever rise (7% last year) a mortgage should be far less at its end than at its start...
> 
> and before you say it
> 
> no, we cant buy at a huge discount, our council created its own housing association and passed all stock and tenants over so they cant be forced to sell to tenants..


But that doesn't automatically entitle you fences and what ever else you fancy. You already pay a significantly lower rate of rent than say private rented do so why do you think the council should foot other bills too. their budgets are already stretched more than you can imagine.

And so you shouldn't get to buy at a discount. Don't even get me started on that.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Firstly some of those on benefits have every right to moan when they see different rules for different people.
> Secondly,if they were not entitled to them,under the rules,then they wouldn't be getting them.Unless you are tarring all on benefits with the same brush. *


Those on benefits get them BECAUSE there is a system in place which allows that to happen. If there was NO system, there would be no benefits.

The reason there IS a system available is because the government demands that that those who work hand over a hefty wedge to look after those who don't / can't / need other types of assistance.

The benefits you currently enjoy - no matter how big or how small - are there for you at the expense of someone else's hard graft.

People who receive any kind of benefit, and proceed to moan about what they get, are insulting those of us who work hard thereby ensuring that money is there for them.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I could write chapter and verse on welfare housing, tenants and benefits but the dogs need feeding...


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

niki said:


> But that doesn't automatically entitle you fences and what ever else you fancy. You already pay a significantly lower rate of rent than say private rented do so why do you think the council should foot other bills too. their budgets are already stretched more than you can imagine.
> 
> And so you shouldn't get to buy at a discount. Don't even get me started on that.


What are the council there for then? Just taking rent off you? As long as your forking the bill they just sit and relax.I dont think so, they are there to hear your problems, reason will you, getting you a house, helping you out from time to time.


----------



## niki (Jan 14, 2009)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> I moaned my bag off when i lived next door to a druggy and the other side of me there was a drunk.I think if i and a few other neighbours hadnt have moaned nothing would be done to shift these people.And we had to go to court to do that, also being the council's witness in all of this.And because of this we were moved to a nice place.
> Imagine a drunk and his mates banging on your 3yr old sons bedroom wall every night just to provoke his parents.Im just gonna let them do it and not complain to the council.....yeah
> And the druggy next door, her younger son killing a baby squirrel.Im just going to let it lie.
> I believe in doing something to change ways of life.
> ...


Yes and I agree you shouldn't have to put up with that but that's got nothing to do with your attitude with regards to the fencing.

I'm not making any judgements on you or your partners work status. I'm judging your attitude and millions of other peoples that seem to think their entitled to whatever they damn well please.


----------



## niki (Jan 14, 2009)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> What are the council there for then? Just taking rent off you? As long as your forking the bill they just sit and relax.I dont think so, they are there to hear your problems, reason will you, getting you a house, helping you out from time to time.


The fact that you think the council is there purely to help you out speaks volumes. I'm guessing your one of these that thinks your council tax is too high for 'just' emptying your bin!


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

Not everyone who claims benefits is the same. 

We claim housing benefit and my husband works 50 hrs a week but still does not earn much. We are a nice family who cause not trouble to our neighbours. I volunteer at my daughter play school and hope they will one day take me on. I can only do this as she is also with me when I'm volunteering. I've taken exams in accounts to improve myself when the kids are all in full time education i can hopefully find a job that fits with this. Child care is too expensive and will take all my wages at the moment and then the government would end up paying for the child care instead so I would still be claiming and at the same time not bringing up my kids who already hardly see their dad. We are just doing the best we can for our family. We still pay tax as well.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> Those on benefits get them BECAUSE there is a system in place which allows that to happen. If there was NO system, there would be no benefits.
> 
> The reason there IS a system available is because the government demands that that those who work hand over a hefty wedge to look after those who don't / can't / need other types of assistance.
> 
> ...


*Both my husband and myself have paid into that system.Hubby still works,i'm retired.But i will never begrudge anyone help if its needed.
Under this government they are just hitting all that can least afford it.*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Firstly some of those on benefits have every right to moan when they see different rules for different people.*





newfiesmum said:


> Yes, that is the sort of thing that makes us moan.


What you are effectively saying is you would like more selection to determine need. Current difficulty is money is available for too many whilst those who need it miss out. I don't think those who do not receive benefits would complain about those who *need* additional money getting it. Trouble is a lot of people on benefit who abuse it are actually hitting those who do, not just by taking money from the pot themselves but also hitting the reputation of those on benefit in general.

Shouldn't those in need of benefit be campaigning for better adjudication and targeting of money based on need rather than simply bemoaning the fact that the pot of money given away is less? It's in everyone's interest to hit those who play the system.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Both my husband and myself have paid into that system.Hubby still works,i'm retired.But i will never begrudge anyone help if its needed.
> Under this government they are just hitting all that can least afford it.*


In the foyer of Tesco on Saturday there were several army cadets with collecting buckets, not for charity but for "save our soldiers". I was quite shocked actually, since part of our income tax is supposed to go to the Ministry of Defence to finance our armed forces, but it seems they have to go out with begging bowls whilst our taxes are sent to help foreigners.

The government would not have to tax or cut anything if they got their act together and got their priorities right.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Goblin said:


> What you are effectively saying is you would like more selection to determine need.


Very much doubt any government, which ever party, would dare to suggest means testing though.

I did read something in the paper the other day that starting with alcoholics/drug addicts/gamblers they are looking into some sort of smart card. Benefits credited direct to that and can only used to buy food & necessities. Sure it said that system is used in Australia, might be wrong on the country though


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> How can people just sit there and twiddle their thumbs.


lol it seems easy for half of pf, its always busy here in the UK day times


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Sorry to say but benefits are a way of life to alot of people,I have offered jobs to neighbours and there answers have been "I would'nt get out of bed for that money"I get up at 4am work my guts out to pay my mortgage and bills.We pay in tax £1045 a month between us and if something goes wrong in the house we have to pay and that month I will be scratching about to find the money for petrol to get me to work.I have no objections to people having benefits when really needed it but some just seem to take the P$ss.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> In the foyer of Tesco on Saturday there were several army cadets with collecting buckets, not for charity but for "save our soldiers". I was quite shocked actually, since part of our income tax is supposed to go to the Ministry of Defence to finance our armed forces, but it seems they have to go out with begging bowls whilst our taxes are sent to help foreigners.
> 
> The government would not have to tax or cut anything if they got their act together and got their priorities right.


*I know my answer to your post won't be popular,but.As i see it those that join the forces now,do so through choice,unlike NS..But when things go wrong for them,we are asked to help out.They joined by choice,as do our fire service,police,ect.
As for foreign aid,well as far as i'm concerned charity HAS to begin at home.
We should NOT be in any war at the moment that has nothing to do with us.
And before anyone thinks i don't care, i do.
But would anyone expect me to help my neighbours family before i helped my own?*


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> Very much doubt any government, which ever party, would dare to suggest means testing though.
> 
> I did read something in the paper the other day that starting with alcoholics/drug addicts/gamblers they are looking into some sort of smart card. Benefits credited direct to that and can only used to buy food & necessities. Sure it said that system is used in Australia, might be wrong on the country though


That would be an excellent idea. A card that means a person can by food and necessities, perhaps petrol, gas and electric, even pay for their tv which I think is a necessity to a lot, certainly to me. But they can't buy booze with it, or **** or anything else. As long as you can use it for dog food!



JANICE199 said:


> *I know my answer to your post won't be popular,but.As i see it those that join the forces now,do so through choice,unlike NS..But when things go wrong for them,we are asked to help out.They joined by choice,as do our fire service,police,ect.
> As for foreign aid,well as far as i'm concerned charity HAS to begin at home.
> We should NOT be in any war at the moment that has nothing to do with us.
> And before anyone thinks i don't care, i do.
> But would anyone expect me to help my neighbours family before i helped my own?*


I could not agree more. I have no idea why we are involved in a war at all, but the barracks down the road, from whence these cadets emerged, have just sold about 400 houses which they no longer need. Where the hell has that gone?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> I could not agree more. I have no idea why we are involved in a war at all, but the barracks down the road, from whence these cadets emerged, have just sold about 400 houses which they no longer need. Where the hell has that gone?


*Perhaps they have done what Maggie did,took the money but didn't put it back into housing.*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *As i see it those that join the forces now,do so through choice,unlike NS..But when things go wrong for them,we are asked to help out.They joined by choice,as do our fire service,police,ect.*


They may join through choice but that doesn't mean they choose where and when they fight. My understanding is when injured they get minimal support when compared to countries like the states. Income tax was introduced to support fight against the french from what I can remember. Complaining we shouldn't be in a war is a matter of foreign policy. I don't believe we should either but I don't think we should have such close ties to the US and let them decide what we should be doing which seems to be what happens. Then again some feel it's better than being more closely tied to the EU 

Foreign aid to other countries is also being cut. Believe aid to India terminates in 2015 as an example.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Goblin said:


> They may join through choice but that doesn't mean they choose where and when they fight. My understanding is when injured they get minimal support when compared to countries like the states. *Income tax was introduced to support fight against the french from what I can remember.* Complaining we shouldn't be in a war is a matter of foreign policy. I don't believe we should either but I don't think we should have such close ties to the US and let them decide what we should be doing which seems to be what happens. Then again some feel it's better than being more closely tied to the EU
> 
> Foreign aid to other countries is also being cut. Believe aid to India terminates in 2015 as an example.


Blimey you must be very very old :eek6::lol::lol:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> They may join through choice but that doesn't mean they choose where and when they fight. My understanding is when injured they get minimal support when compared to countries like the states. Income tax was introduced to support fight against the french from what I can remember. Complaining we shouldn't be in a war is a matter of foreign policy. I don't believe we should either but I don't think we should have such close ties to the US and let them decide what we should be doing which seems to be what happens. Then again some feel it's better than being more closely tied to the EU
> 
> Foreign aid to other countries is also being cut. Believe aid to India terminates in 2015 as an example.


*Fact is,if they join during peace time they should at least understand what they might end up with.I mean no disrespect but its not the same as when we had national service.Oh and i wont vioce how i feel about our "ties" with the US.*


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Goblin said:


> They may join through choice but that doesn't mean they choose where and when they fight. My understanding is when injured they get minimal support when compared to countries like the states. Income tax was introduced to support fight against the french from what I can remember. Complaining we shouldn't be in a war is a matter of foreign policy. I don't believe we should either but I don't think we should have such close ties to the US and let them decide what we should be doing which seems to be what happens. Then again some feel it's better than being more closely tied to the EU
> 
> Foreign aid to other countries is also being cut. Believe aid to India terminates in 2015 as an example.


I thought it was to finance the first world war with a promise that it would be dropped when the war ended. And it was 10%.


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> A council (or HA) property is not always paid for by benefits, some tenants do actually have jobs, and trust me, they aint always cheap, we rent a 2 bedroom HA bungalow, the rent is £92/week, the rates are £1100 a year,


But the OP is about Housing Benefits being affected, not the rent in a council or HA property.

I didnt vote in this goverment (well really none of us did  ) 
BUT
This (benefit cutting) is by far the best thing they are doing
It is pure and simple, those that do NOT work should NOT be better off nor have to sacrifice LESS than those who do


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I thought it was to finance the first world war with a promise that it would be dropped when the war ended. And it was 10%.


According to wiki which means up to you if you believe it...



> One of the first recorded taxes on income was the Saladin tithe introduced by Henry II in 1188 to raise money for the Third Crusade.[7] The tithe demanded that each layperson in England be taxed a tenth of their personal income and moveable property.[8] However, the inception date of the modern income tax is typically accepted as 1799.[9]
> 
> Income tax was announced in Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 and introduced in 1799, to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic wars. Pitt's new graduated income tax began at a levy of 2d in the pound (0.8333%) on annual incomes over £60 and increased up to a maximum of 2s in the pound (10%) on incomes of over £200 (£170,542 in 2007). Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million (£8,527,100,000 in 2007), but actual receipts for 1799 totaled just over £6 million.[10]
> 
> The tax was repealed in 1816 and opponents of the tax, who thought it should only be used to finance wars, wanted all records of the tax destroyed along with its repeal. Records were publicly burned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but copies were retained in the basement of the tax court.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

babycham2002 said:


> But the OP is about Housing Benefits being affected, not the rent in a council or HA property.
> 
> I didnt vote in this goverment (well really none of us did  )
> BUT
> ...


*I agree that working folk should'nt be worse off than those on benefits.But note how the min. wage doesn't go up that much.How about we have a min. wage of £7 an hour?
What is it they have just added to min. wage. 11p?:lol::lol:*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> In the foyer of Tesco on Saturday there were several army cadets with collecting buckets, not for charity but for "save our soldiers". *I was quite shocked actually, since part of our income tax is supposed to go to the Ministry of Defence to finance our armed forces*, but it seems they have to go out with begging bowls whilst our taxes are sent to help foreigners.
> 
> The government would not have to tax or cut anything if they got their act together and got their priorities right.


a bit like expecting our road tax and fuel duty to be spent on roads im afraid....


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Goblin said:


> According to wiki which means up to you if you believe it...


I'm not surprised it was Henry II who started it, and guess what? Nearly a thousand years later we are still paying for the army to fight the muslems!

So it was repealed, and I think I am right in saying it was brought back for the first war and was 10%.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

babycham2002 said:


> But the OP is about Housing Benefits being affected, not the rent in a council or HA property.
> 
> I didnt vote in this goverment (well really none of us did  )
> BUT
> ...


The most sensible comment on this whole thread!!!!!!!


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

There not just hitting those on benefits, they are hitting middle class families also  (still don't really think of myself as that though !) 

I will soon lose the child benefit we get which will be £140 less a month. Yes we can afford to live with out it but it will make a difference to what we can do. We do not lead a lavish lifestyle , one holiday a year, we have a 3 bed ex council house (bought privately not off the council at the top of the market 5 years ago  ) the kids do a couple of clubs a week but we are not "rolling in it" hubs is in the 40% tax bracket so you instantly lose a lot of what he earns. I'm not saying we are hard off, i wouldn't insult people but my husband leaves at 7am and sometimes not home until gone 10pm as that is what is expected of him to earn such money. So his more than doing his bit, yet people like to say to me so he should pay that much tax and so you should lose the child benefit , as if we are the reason the country is going to pot 

Now my older sister has never worked a day of her life, has 5 children all on benefit has just been given a 5 bed council house , she has 4 horses , drives a car , smokes ect ect and believe me she is not thankful to those who go out to work to pay for it  I did workout a while back she effectively gets given the equivalent of a 50k + salary in all her handouts 


Back on track , yes they should have to down size their house, it was given to them for their needs if they change so should the house. Why should a family of 4-5 have to suffer in a 1 bed place just because someone wants to be selfish and hang on to what was given to them in their hour of need. If that person had to suffer with 5 people in a one bed flat before they was given their house maybe they would think twice !


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I don't understand why they would think it would be OK for anyone to take a stranger into there own home, it's just crazy I would hate the thought of having someone else living in my house I would never feel safe.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

I can't believe there is actually anywhere in the country that does 5 bedroom council houses.When i needed more space i had the enviromental health out and was told to convert my front room into a bedroom.I even asked if i could pay to put an extension on the house but was refused.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Bit of a sweeping statement - how many do you personally know? And I mean actually know, not read about in the papers or idle gossip? Not everyone in social housing is on benefits anyway, just low incomes so cannot get a mortgage.
> 
> P.S. My sister doesn't have sky, doesn't smoke whaccy baccy either she has asthma


do you want a list

fors starters most of our ex-neighbours including the one who punched our window in and assaulted the wife


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I know this sounds harsh but why should she receive extra money so she can have guests?
> 
> Social housing is just that, it's not a permanent home & people have to expect to move when there needs no longer justfy their accommodation. Why should a single person receive money to fund a house that is too big for them?
> 
> I could only afford a one bed flat for years so all my guests had to sleep on the sofa. Why should people on benefits not have to to make do & adjust to suit their means just as everyone else has to :confused1:


This house is where she brought up her two boys , in the village where she herself was born and brought up. 
Everything and everyone she knows is based in this village yet according to you just because her boys have now grown up and moved out she should be dragged away from her whole life and dumped somewhere amongst strangers

That house may very well be a council house , but to her and thousands just like her it is *home* and the people surrounding them friends , why then , should they be penalised just because they no longer have family living with them
Its plain cruelty to move someone away from everything they are used to and move them to a strange place , usually not in the nicest of areas , at a vulnerable stage of their life when family has moved out and friends are needed more than ever

And I just read a comment about those not working .... neither myself nor my friend work , we are both nearing 50. 
She has crippling arthritis and was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and is undergoing treatment for it , what work do you suggest she do
And I have sociophobia , im terrified of people , what work is there that I can do where you can guarantee I wont have to see anyone or leave my house


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Bjt said:


> I can't believe there is actually anywhere in the country that does 5 bedroom council houses.When i needed more space i had the enviromental health out and was told to convert my front room into a bedroom.I even asked if i could pay to put an extension on the house but was refused.


yea cos, youd think after a couple kids and they cant afford a diff accomodation, they would shut their legs  :arf:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Bjt said:


> I can't believe there is actually anywhere in the country that does 5 bedroom council houses.When i needed more space i had the enviromental health out and was told to convert my front room into a bedroom.I even asked if i could pay to put an extension on the house but was refused.


One of my former pupils, a single mother with five kids, was given a seven bedroomed house because they didn't have any five or six bedroom ones. And she complained it was too big.

She also had an almost brand new people mover and was having two or three lessons a week with the most expensive driving school in the country. She didn't work of course.


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

Side question: Are they still planning to make people work for their benefits?
I vaguely remember some sensationalist reporting about it a while ago... couldn't believe there was no 'work for the dole' here!

As for moving people into smaller accommodation, not paying for a lot of extras etc it's the same for people who rent regardless of benefits. If you don't own your home then you can be put in a situation where you have to downscale or move quite quickly, and I don't think my landlord would agree to pay for non-essentials unless he wanted to think about selling the flat on, then I'd be back to the previous problem. Why should being on benefits mean you get a 'better' deal than lots of those who aren't and will never be in a position to own their own home either?


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> In the foyer of Tesco on Saturday there were several army cadets with collecting buckets, not for charity but for "save our soldiers". I was quite shocked actually, since part of our income tax is supposed to go to the Ministry of Defence to finance our armed forces, but it seems they have to go out with begging bowls whilst our taxes are sent to help foreigners.
> 
> The government would not have to tax or cut anything if they got their act together and got their priorities right.


I'm not familiar with Save Our Soldiers, was it Support Our Soldiers? There are many forces charities, like there are for other causes, it's really a matter of personal choice.

I don't really go along with people who are injured get minimal support, I know several people who have been medically discharged and they are looked after. However I still support forces charities, because sometimes people need something practical support from agencies that understand their problems, much in the same way as MacMillian nurses for cancer patients.



JANICE199 said:


> *I know my answer to your post won't be popular,but.As i see it those that join the forces now,do so through choice,unlike NS..But when things go wrong for them,we are asked to help out.They joined by choice,as do our fire service,police,ect.
> As for foreign aid,well as far as i'm concerned charity HAS to begin at home.
> We should NOT be in any war at the moment that has nothing to do with us.
> And before anyone thinks i don't care, i do.
> But would anyone expect me to help my neighbours family before i helped my own?*


They do make a choice, it's that choice that stops your son/daughter/grandson etc being forced into that life. Would you prefer no one volunteered and we conscripted?

'We' do (as a Nation) have an obligation to help out forces personnel under the Military Covenant.

It's a matter of opinion of you think the Afghanistan is anything to do with us.

We are part of NATO which will mean we get involved in threats that do not directly impact us, but we also enjoy protection under it.

Anyway back to HB, I don't understand how people can seemingly live in houses most working people couldn't afford. I live in small private estate, there is one house where a family (mother, one school age child and other older children) live, they've been there 7 years. None of them work, those houses rent for £1000 per month, how many people can afford that if they are working? I can't get my head around it.


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Mese said:


> This house is where she brought up her two boys , in the village where she herself was born and brought up.
> Everything and everyone she knows is based in this village yet according to you just because her boys have now grown up and moved out she should be dragged away from her whole life and dumped somewhere amongst strangers
> 
> That house may very well be a council house , but to her and thousands just like her it is *home* and the people surrounding them friends , why then , should they be penalised just because they no longer have family living with them
> Its plain cruelty to move someone away from everything they are used to and move them to a strange place , usually not in the nicest of areas , at a vulnerable stage of their life when family has moved out and friends are needed more than ever


But plenty of people who work Do face this and do have to do it on a regular basis.
When my step mum died my dad had to move back into his mums because he couldnt afford the place that they had together.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

babycham2002 said:


> But the OP is about Housing Benefits being affected, not the rent in a council or HA property.
> 
> I didnt vote in this goverment (well really none of us did  )
> BUT
> ...


If you read the replys it slid into the benefit.I do apologise that may be my fault


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

niki said:


> The fact that you think the council is there purely to help you out speaks volumes. I'm guessing your one of these that thinks your council tax is too high for 'just' emptying your bin!


What are you on about.....
Who are you again? wheres that ignore button


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> I know this sounds harsh but why should she receive extra money so she can have guests?
> 
> Social housing is just that, it's not a permanent home & people have to expect to move when there needs no longer justfy their accommodation. Why should a single person receive money to fund a house that is too big for them?
> 
> I could only afford a one bed flat for years so all my guests had to sleep on the sofa. Why should people on benefits not have to to make do & adjust to suit their means just as everyone else has to :confused1:


I completely agree with this, if you want to have the choice of how big a house you want, then pay the rent yourself. Benefits are there to help the needy but a lone person does not need a 3 bed house when there could be a family of 4 living in a 1 bed flat because there is nothing else.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

CharleyRogan said:


> I completely agree with this, if you want to have the choice of how big a house you want, then pay the rent yourself. Benefits are there to help the needy but a lone person does not need a 3 bed house when there could be a family of 4 living in a 1 bed flat because there is nothing else.


Thank god for that, somebody who actually understands me here.I agree with you.:thumbsup:


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

CRL said:


> i live in a council flat. me and my husband share a 1 bed flat, so we wouldnt have to move, im also not planning for kids for years to come so shouldnt have to move until then. i also live with 28 rats, so if i did move it would have to be one that takes pets. i would love a 2 bed flat so i could ahve a rat room but i know unless i buy thats not going to happen. i dont recieve benefits for any bills, i pay the *£94.12 rent per week for my 1 bed flat*.


Lucky you my kids pay £650+ per month for one bedroom properties. They have no choice they do not fit any criteria for council housing.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

northnsouth said:


> Lucky you my kids pay £650+ per month for one bedroom properties. They have no choice they do not fit any criteria for council housing.


Do you live in the south? Round my area a 1 bed is around £350 and i am not in the poorest area of merseyside.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

CharleyRogan said:


> Do you live in the south? Round my area a 1 bed is around £350 and i am not in the poorest area of merseyside.


Yes Berkshire...


----------



## metame (Sep 25, 2009)

i cant even afford a one bed place

*sigh*


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

I was lucky with mine, i share with a friend and our rent is only 425 for 2 bedrooms and a garage. 

My mum will be affected by this as has 3 bedrooms but only her and my brother live there, hers is £750 a month in a very affluent town, which i had to move out of because i have no chance of affording to live there. She hasn't been to work in 20 years and pops out kids when they mention the word!!

She is better off than i am, and that should not be the case.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

I live in a 3 bed house, just me and hubby at the moment, but obviously baby is on the way. Our house is a private rental but the majority of the houses in the street are council. We pay £725pcm, they pay £420pcm.

Yes if we want something done the landlord will pay for it - usually. If its because of damage we have done (unlikely), we have to pay for it ourselves. As we have had a few improvements to the house over the 4 years we have lived here, our rent has increased over the years. None of the other tenants have had their rent increased.

Also the delightful neighbour next door often decides he doesnt want to pay rent for a few months. If we tried that we would be evicted, but he gets given extra time to pay it off. Plus he often decides he's too ill to work (yet out all night drinking with the other neighbours) yet seems to buy more new things than we do.

I pay 40% tax and really object to that. I work hard for my money and happy to pay towards those who genuinely need it, but A LOT of people these days see benefits as a way of life and its wrong.

As far as i am concerned, if you want to live in a house bigger than you need, be prepared to pay the extra.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

Do you think these changes coming in will encourage council house tenants to have more children to stay in their houses because i know my mother would!!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

CharleyRogan said:


> Do you think these changes coming in will encourage council house tenants to have more children to stay in their houses because i know my mother would!!


Sadly......I think that may well happen with some It seems some make a career of benefit scrounging and fit their lives around what is necessary to keep max benefits coming in......very sad.....especially for the tax payer.....


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

CharleyRogan said:


> Do you think these changes coming in will encourage council house tenants to have more children to stay in their houses because i know my mother would!!


That's one of the reasons I don't think this will work because it will only cause hardship for the genuine because the 'career' benefit claimants always find a way round these things,


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Well what they need too do in conjuction with this is too cap the amount of Child Benefit and Child Tax credits.Say if you have more than 2/3 children we wont pay you a penny more.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> A council (or HA) property is not always paid for by benefits, some tenants do actually have jobs, and trust me, they aint always cheap, we rent a 2 bedroom HA bungalow, the rent is £92/week, the rates are £1100 a year,


Council house rents are way lower than the private rental sector so yes, they are subsidised. Even when someone has worked and paid full rent, they are still cheaper than renting privately or buying a property.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

CharleyRogan said:


> Do you think these changes coming in will encourage council house tenants to have more children to stay in their houses because i know my mother would!!


But those who think like that already do have more children when the ones they have reach school age and they are expected to look for work.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

I dont know what to think about this tbh....We are in a 4bed council house (dont all faint at once :lol: 

Has anyone ever seen the state that the council let these houses in?, yes they give you a decorating allowance which is like a drop in the ocean to the work that needs doing! We have only been here 6months and have spent upwards of 6k on the house we have had to plaster rooms the lot! We are about to get fencing put up (both sides - next door is a tight fooker) and yes, the fencing will be legally ours and we can take it with us when we move if we wish.
The point im trying to make is that if we moved into a private rental we would have the house in a decent state as soon as we moved in and wouldnt have to pay through the nose to get it liveable.
The council should inspect all these homes and see if they are being looked after, if they are then they should not be allowed to charge ANY more than just the typical rent! IF not then yes, by all means tax them. Thousands of people spent tons of money making the houses livable and in the end only the councils benefit anyway.
My husband works full time and we pay all our rent and taxes and we dont have ANY benefit.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

harley bear said:


> I dont know what to think about this tbh....We are in a 4bed council house (dont all faint at once :lol:
> 
> Has anyone ever seen the state that the council let these houses in?, yes they give you a decorating allowance which is like a drop in the ocean to the work that needs doing! We have only been here 6months and have spent upwards of 6k on the house we have had to plaster rooms the lot! We are about to get fencing put up (both sides - next door is a tight fooker) and yes, the fencing will be legally ours and we can take it with us when we move if we wish.
> The point im trying to make is that if we moved into a private rental we would have the house in a decent state as soon as we moved in and wouldnt have to pay through the nose to get it liveable.
> ...


But ... you have still been given a large house for your family & will pay alot less rent than those in private accomodation. Many people would never be able to afford a 4 bed house

You should still consider yourself lucky, alot of people who will not be allocated council housing & will be paying an absolute fortune for private accomodation that is below standard. I know I was one of them years ago!


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> I dont know what to think about this tbh....We are in a 4bed council house (dont all faint at once :lol:
> 
> Has anyone ever seen the state that the council let these houses in?, yes they give you a decorating allowance which is like a drop in the ocean to the work that needs doing! We have only been here 6months and have spent upwards of 6k on the house we have had to plaster rooms the lot! We are about to get fencing put up (both sides - next door is a tight fooker) and yes, the fencing will be legally ours and we can take it with us when we move if we wish.
> The point im trying to make is that if we moved into a private rental we would have the house in a decent state as soon as we moved in and wouldnt have to pay through the nose to get it liveable.
> ...


How on earth did you qualify for a 4 bed house  the council here would give you a 2 bed with 3 boys .


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

harley bear said:


> I dont know what to think about this tbh....We are in a 4bed council house (dont all faint at once :lol:
> 
> Has anyone ever seen the state that the council let these houses in?, yes they give you a decorating allowance which is like a drop in the ocean to the work that needs doing! We have only been here 6months and have spent upwards of 6k on the house we have had to plaster rooms the lot! We are about to get fencing put up (both sides - next door is a tight fooker) and yes, the fencing will be legally ours and we can take it with us when we move if we wish.
> The point im trying to make is that if we moved into a private rental we would have the house in a decent state as soon as we moved in and wouldnt have to pay through the nose to get it liveable.
> ...


Not necessarily. I have seen some private rentals where the landlord wont do anything and they are shocking. We are quite lucky in our current house where if there is a major problem it gets fixed within a month (need quotes from multiple vendors, landlords approval etc) but ours is managed by an agency. We have still put a lot into this property over the years, and this includes the new carpets i had done upstairs 3 weeks ago.

The difference i have noticed too is the management. The houses are often a state from previous tenants. We get inspected every 3 months, the council doesnt seem to bother so sometimes people just wreck the property. Its not theirs so why should they care? (i realise not all council tenants do this!)


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

harley bear said:


> I dont know what to think about this tbh....We are in a 4bed council house (dont all faint at once :lol:
> 
> Has anyone ever seen the state that the council let these houses in?, yes they give you a decorating allowance which is like a drop in the ocean to the work that needs doing! We have only been here 6months and have spent upwards of 6k on the house we have had to plaster rooms the lot! We are about to get fencing put up (both sides - next door is a tight fooker) and yes, the fencing will be legally ours and we can take it with us when we move if we wish.
> The point im trying to make is that if we moved into a private rental we would have the house in a decent state as soon as we moved in and wouldnt have to pay through the nose to get it liveable.
> ...


We moved in last october and when we looked at this property i nearly cryed (as we had spent a fortune in our last house also the garden) in this one all of the walls were black even the stair rails and skirting boards  no flooring, even though the council asked us to leave ours in and we agreed.We just got in with the decorating voucher but it wasn't much.And they have stopped doing them now.Stripping all the black paint took ages  Even though the council knew what it was like i couldnt understand why they couldnt do the decorating.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

harley bear said:


> I dont know what to think about this tbh....We are in a 4bed council house (dont all faint at once :lol:
> 
> Has anyone ever seen the state that the council let these houses in?, yes they give you a decorating allowance which is like a drop in the ocean to the work that needs doing! We have only been here 6months and have spent upwards of 6k on the house we have had to plaster rooms the lot! We are about to get fencing put up (both sides - next door is a tight fooker) and yes, the fencing will be legally ours and we can take it with us when we move if we wish.
> The point im trying to make is that if we moved into a private rental we would have the house in a decent state as soon as we moved in and wouldnt have to pay through the nose to get it liveable.
> ...


You get the benefit of security - private rentals are all done on short term leases, 6 to 24 months (although I've never known anyone actually get a 24 month lease) someone renting a privately risks loosing their home at any point.

And you don't have to be inspected every 3 months - although I think if councils did this they would be able to maintain the properties in a good state and evict troublesome tennents a lot easier.

Personally I think underoccupation needs to be addressed - I know it's dificult but housing is at a premium - a regular weekend guest can sleep on the sofa or air bed - that's what guests at my house have to do I can't afford a spare bedroom.

I also think longer leases in the private sector need to be encouraged - in Germany leases are easily available 5 years plus, I know someone with a 20 year lease. This would be one way to take the pressure off social housing.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

The state of our new council house when we moved in 
The downstairs loo








The back garden








The stairs








The hallway








The kitchen








Top of the landing








The bathroom








The living room

















Surely the council could have done something with the house when we moved in because it doesnt half put you off having a council house


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Surely the council could have done something with the house when we moved in because it doesnt half put you off having a council house


Looks very similar to my house when I bought it although the kitchen is much nicer. This is merely cosmetic. Why is it that people expect to move into a newly decorated home - surely part of the fun is decorating it to your personal taste?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Looks very similar to my house when I bought it although the kitchen is much nicer. This is merely cosmetic. Why is it that people expect to move into a newly decorated home - surely part of the fun is decorating it to your personal taste?


When we bought our bungalow back in 1982 it was a do it yourself botch artists paradise! Little things like a central heating pipe going outside, over the back door and back in again or a hole drilled in the wall for the washing machine lead to go through and plug into the kitchen rather than put a plug in the sideway.

Then there was the five layers of wallpaper everywhere with gloss paint in between which I had to hire and industrial steamer to remove.

That council house, according to those photos, really doesn't look that bad to me, just not to everybody's taste.


----------



## Myanimalmadhouse (Mar 6, 2011)

Its going to cripple my mum! Ok so about 4 years ago my mum was quite bad in debt so she sold her house to one of those companies that buy your house but then let you rent it for as long as you want. Her grand daughter (my neice) ran away from home and moved in with her. Shortly after my mum lost her job at the age of 63 ( stupid company as she loved that job and they had to get 2 full time idiots to cover her 1 part time job!)

So at the age of 63 she's not likely to get another job so goes in to claim her pension etc. They tell her she's actually not entitled to HB or CTB as she previously owned the house she now rents. So now she realises she's getting about £120 a week and has to pay £450 a month in rent and all the other stuff. So she moves in to a little pokey 2 bed private rented house next to a pub - great at least she can now afford to actually live right?! Well 2 years ago my neice is old enough and moves in with her boyfriend so they tell her she's now not entitled to full HB as she has an extra room and so she has to pay £20 a week towards her rent.

Well not too bad, could be worse - oh but then just last week she's been sent a letter to say that come april she will have to pay more towards her rent again for the extra bedroom! -- because she's in private rented she's now stuck as no one is offering her any help cus she's not in council or HA! She cant afford to move and cant afford to stay!

She's brought up 4 kids (when there was no CTC or anything just the CB which was no where near as much as it is now!)and worked all of her life she's paid over 40 years worth of tax and is now being screwed over and over again! Oh and she's not some kind of low poverty person thats spent years on minimum wage she has a BA honours in psychology, sociology and religous studies! She's a hard working, intelligent woman who is slowly being degraded and destroyed by the backwards way this country works


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> The state of our new council house when we moved in
> The downstairs loo
> 
> 
> ...


Can't see anything wrong with that house to be honest apart from it needs a new carpet. Most Private rental property are a lot worse then that. Ours was ok but we still decorated everything and re turfed the garden for the kids which was a mess before.

Some people expect far too much.


----------



## waggy Tailz (Sep 14, 2011)

CharleyRogan said:


> Do you think these changes coming in will encourage council house tenants to have more children to stay in their houses because i know my mother would!!


I think this may well be the case for some people!

I think what they should do, is start this from any new tenancy's in 2013. So then, people are aware they might lose their 'home' when their situations change and are under occupying the homes, this was not the case when my parents moved into council accommodation 29 years ago, was a home for life more or less.

Luckily My mother is a pensioner lol But I know this change might affect her! She gets benefits the last 7 years now after serious illness, heart attack, lung failure, kidney failure, septicaemia and in a coma for 16 weeks! She got better and after 6 months moved back home, but she can not work as she can not walk far at all, and is on oxygen. She is now over 60 so gets a pension, but she needs help with council tax and she struggles to live on the money she gets, but she does not go out, doesn't have sky, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't shop (she would love too though lol). I worry as I cannot see her being able to live in the family home (be it HA/Council or not, its a home!) with any housing benefits cut!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

SandyR said:


> Can't see anything wrong with that house to be honest apart from it needs a new carpet. Most Private rental property are a lot worse then that. Ours was ok but we still decorated everything and re turfed the garden for the kids which was a mess before.
> 
> Some people expect far too much.


That's what I thought!!


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

SandyR said:


> Can't see anything wrong with that house to be honest apart from it needs a new carpet. Most Private rental property are a lot worse then that. Ours was ok but we still decorated everything and re turfed the garden for the kids which was a mess before.
> 
> Some people expect far too much.


Your joking aren't you  what a mess the heating didnt even work, we didnt have heating over xmas and we had 2 kids.
dead bodies in the back garden which is normal 
Black skirting boards..and black back door....have you ever tryed getting black paint off....you have no idea


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> The state of our new council house when we moved in
> The downstairs loo
> 
> 
> ...


What's with all the black were the previous tennants from the dark side  mind the garden looks fab wish we'd taken photos of what ours was like when we moved in, hubby gone through 3pick axes clearing the rubbish 2 1/2 years down the line its getting there, unbelievable how some folk live and get away with it


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> Surely the council could have done something with the house when we moved in because it doesnt half put you off having a council house


Aside from the disgusting decor lol, its not that bad tbh, just needs a lick of decent colour paint. The yard looks fine just needs a mow. I currently own my own home but ten yrs ago I was in homeswest, (council house oz style) and some houses youd be lucky not to have walls punched in and used syringes in the hall cupboards, rubbish a mile high in the yards , so ya you got lucky :arf:
edit to add, as for heating, they used to supply homes a heater here, but then they stopped making it a priority, and really, its not there issue to get the house warm, you can buy heaters yourself.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

skip said:


> What's with all the black were the previous tennants from the dark side  mind the garden looks fab wish we'd taken photos of what ours was like when we moved in, hubby gone through 3pick axes clearing the rubbish 2 1/2 years down the line its getting there, unbelievable how some folk live and get away with it


My thoughts exactly people just havent got a clue how long the decorating takes do they.They just think strip wallpaper paint over the mess, but its bloody hard work.
Pmsl the dark side :lol::lol: thats what we thought.
And we are still decorating to this day.I'd hate to see what other people think are acceptable houses to live in.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> Aside from the disgusting decor lol, its not that bad tbh, just needs a lick of decent colour paint. The yard looks fine just needs a mow. I currently own my own home but ten yrs ago I was in homeswest, (council house oz style) and some houses youd be lucky not to have walls punched in and used syringes in the hall cupboards, rubbish a mile high in the yards , so ya you got lucky :arf:


Ive never in my life been in a house as bad as that thats probably why im shocked at some of the responses.If it wasnt in a decent area i would have told them to stick it:thumbsup:
Decorating is spot on, just what i would have picked  not


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> Ive never in my life been in a house as bad as that thats probably why im shocked at some of the responses.If it wasnt in a decent area i would have told them to stick it:thumbsup:
> Decorating is spot on, just what i would have picked  not


I guess cos, when you are in "need" of a house to live thats affordable, most people dont get upset at the aesthetic aspects, and more focus on whether its safe and if appliances work etc, security and stuff. Thats more important, and yours seems to be fine in that regard.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> I guess cos, when you are in "need" of a house to live thats affordable, most people dont get upset at the aesthetic aspects, and more focus on whether its safe and if appliances work etc, security and stuff. Thats more important, and yours seems to be fine in that regard.


Why arent you working with the council  They need people like you to back them up....you could always be a council Inspector.Top job


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> Why arent you working with the council  They need people like you to back them up....you could always be a council Inspector.Top job


That made me laugh, when we moved in ours the bedrooms were bottle green from ceiling to floor the paint we went through just to cover it,there was actual rubble under the carpets,don't know they managed to lay them on top of it in the first place,they must have had pets too because the animal was in unbelievable, the grease in the kitchen was just uggggg,the day we moved in I cried,I had seen it before we moved in but just how filthy it was didn't hit me till the actual day, in fact I spent days crying because the house we downsized from had fitted wardrobes, clean carpets,fabulous garden etc we didn't get a penny towards cleaning our place up so this crap about help with costs when you downsize is a joke,its cost us a fortune so far to do the place up and we're not finished yet,in fact I think they should have billed the previous tenant, he must have been laughing his socks off when he got our house


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

skip said:


> That made me laugh, when we moved in ours the bedrooms were bottle green from ceiling to floor the paint we went through just to cover it,there was actual rubble under the carpets,don't know they managed to lay them on top of it in the first place,they must have had pets too because the animal was in unbelievable, the grease in the kitchen was just uggggg,the day we moved in I cried,I had seen it before we moved in but just how filthy it was didn't hit me till the actual day, in fact I spent days crying because the house we downsized from had fitted wardrobes, clean carpets,fabulous garden etc we didn't get a penny towards cleaning our place up so this crap about help with costs when you downsize is a joke,its cost us a fortune so far to do the place up and we're not finished yet,in fact I think they should have billed the previous tenant, he must have been laughing his socks off when he got our house


They normally deduct the damage costs out of the tenents bond, they prolly did pay, you just didnt get any of it lol.. Over here they at least send in cleaners to ajax the kitchen, bathrooms and clean the floors, that should be mandatory, Im surprised it isnt there.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> They normally deduct the damage costs out of the tenents bond, they prolly did pay, you just didnt get any of it lol.. Over here they at least send in cleaners to ajax the kitchen, bathrooms and clean the floors, that should be mandatory, Im surprised it isnt there.


Its council property so you don't pay a bond you just inherit peoples grime


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

skip said:


> Its council property so you don't pay a bond you just inherit peoples grime


ah ok, diff to here then, we still pay bond, for state housing. Its just not as much as a rental.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

I can understand where FS is coming from to a point...

If you have spent a lot of time and money decorating your council house over the years, to make it look nice, put in new carpets (NOT cheap) etc and taken the time to make the garden look pretty, it IS a big kick in the boollox to be told "Right, time for you to move on..." and the house you get put into is a complete sh!thole and you're right back where you were 5 or 10 yrs ago. 

This is why, when I rented many years ago, I never did any form of decorating / improvments without discussing with the landlord first and getting a wedge off my rent. If I was making the place look nicer, then they'd get their money back on the increased rent they could charge the next tenants.

Unfortunately, I know this is not an option with councils.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Knowing it isnt your house, and you may get booted any time, its kinda foolish to invest to much into it tbh anyway. imo


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> Council house rents are way lower than the private rental sector so yes, they are subsidised. Even when someone has worked and paid full rent, they are still cheaper than renting privately or buying a property.


OH NO THEY ARE NOT

We pay £92 a week for a 2 bed bungalow £4416/year and even at that rent (which rose 7% last year) if I lived here 50 years would (using the above as an average) nett the HA £220,000 - and we were not the first tenants and may not be the last.....


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

This thread is descending into a class war, the "have's" vs "the have not's"

We dont have KC registered dogs nor a ride on mower, but we DONT get everything handed to us on a plate, if you object to welfare housing tell your MP


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

skip said:


> Its council property so you don't pay a bond you just inherit peoples grime


Pmsl inherit peoples grime  dirty buggers
Our hoover died the first time we used it in the house.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> Pmsl inherit peoples grime  dirty buggers
> Our hoover died the first time we used it in the house.


Must have been the shock to the system  even Hoovers have feelings too


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

The old house
























Of course we couldn't have done it without some hired help !








really miss our old garden as we rescued some baby squirrels after their mother had gotten shot and started to feed them by the window.
















It was lovely in winter living at the back of some woods


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't understand some people (not directed at anyone on the forum!!)

On the subject of council houses, spoke to my sister this morning, and she has just moved into council accoms because the landlord on her private rent didn't pay the mortgage, so house repossessed.

Anyway, she was complaining about not having a garden, and the bedrooms were too small. Surely having somewhere to live is better than nothing. Surely council tenants can not be picky as long as the house is in good working condition.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Our second council house we had,we moved in 2 days before Christmas.We were the first people on the estate to have radiators,this was because the people there before were druggies and on being evected ripped everything out.Toilets were smashed up,dry air heating system smashed,windows smashed and sinks ripped off the wall.We moved in and tried to turn the heating on and had water rushing out of the boiler on Christmas eve.The first 6 months we spent there we had too dig 2 feet down into the garden as we were left with hundreds of syringes in the garden from the druggies.

While they are sorting out the extra bedroom problem perhaps at the same time they should stop giving flats and incacity benefit or what ever it is called now days to druggies and alcoholics.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

CharleyRogan said:


> I don't understand some people (not directed at anyone on the forum!!)
> 
> On the subject of council houses, spoke to my sister this morning, and she has just moved into council accoms because the landlord on her private rent didn't pay the mortgage, so house repossessed.
> 
> Anyway, she was complaining about not having a garden, and the bedrooms were too small. Surely having somewhere to live is better than nothing. Surely council tenants can not be picky as long as the house is in good working condition.


Good job the council have got this bidding system where you can bid for the house that you want as long as your in the right band.Or it could take ages to get yourself a house.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

is that supposed to be bad?

ill see if i can find pictures of what was offered to us once


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> is that supposed to be bad?
> 
> ill see if i can find pictures of what was offered to us once


No its not....just showing the best council house ive ever had thats NOT been a total mess.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> OH NO THEY ARE NOT
> 
> We pay £92 a week for a 2 bed bungalow £4416/year and even at that rent (which rose 7% last year) if I lived here 50 years would (using the above as an average) nett the HA £220,000 - and we were not the first tenants and may not be the last.....


It's been about 10 years since I rented in Manchester, and that would have been reasonable there 10 years ago. In the area we're in now, it's around £100 p. month cheaper than the average you'd expect to pay for a two bedroomed house. 
I don't know about the rest of the UK, but anywhere I've lived £92 a week would be very low.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

We had a series of private lets till we got a council/HA place

The first one was owned by a guy who lived 150 miles away and only wanted the money so when one christmas eve we all woke up with blinding headaches and British Gas condemned the gas boiler as it was kicking out carbon monoxide he objected when we deducted the cost of repair from the next rent..

The next had never modernised the property, 2 coal fires, no central heating, no double glazing, freezing in winter, after 6 months he sent an estate agent round "to value the property for insurance cover" - the guy told us the owner was selling it

The next had modernised the property himself....i could have done better, DIY disaster, a whole lintel cracked and falling down, faulty electrics, one day the agents rang "your rents to rise by about £3 a week"...yer, ok....next day hes selling it and we have to get out!

But the best was the last, the owner lived 200 miles away, took our bond and rent THEN said we couldnt access the garage or loft as she stored her stuff in them, we lost £250 from our bond cos of a mark on her carpet which her electrician had made, and we had to foster out our cat cos she reckoned his scent could have confused her cat, yet she hadnt lived there for 5 years and never did again...


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

myshkin said:


> It's been about 10 years since I rented in Manchester, and that would have been reasonable there 10 years ago. In the area we're in now, it's around £100 p. month cheaper than the average you'd expect to pay for a two bedroomed house.
> I don't know about the rest of the UK, but anywhere I've lived £92 a week would be very low.


yes but this supposed to be WELFARE housing for those on lower incomes or unable to buy a house, i can rent a private place for not much more, it wrankles when the landlord (HA) gets taken over by another and the rents go up and a whole new fleet of 2012 registered Transits with signwriting appears ...


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> yes but this supposed to be WELFARE housing for those on lower incomes or unable to buy a house, i can rent a private place for not much more, it wrankles when the landlord (HA) gets taken over by another and the rents go up and a whole new fleet of 2012 registered Transits with signwriting appears ...



I thought that was the point? It's housing for those on lower incomes, so it's a lower rent than average.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> OH NO THEY ARE NOT
> 
> We pay £92 a week for a 2 bed bungalow £4416/year and even at that rent (which rose 7% last year) if I lived here 50 years would (using the above as an average) nett the HA £220,000 - and we were not the first tenants and may not be the last.....


Could only get a room for that around here. People are still getting minimum wage though even so 



myshkin said:


> I thought that was the point? It's housing for those on lower incomes, so it's a lower rent than average.


I did too. The message has got very mixed up


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> Good job the council have got this bidding system where you can bid for the house that you want as long as your in the right band.Or it could take ages to get yourself a house.


*I would hate to have to bid like some beggar to have a basic need,for my family.
Fact! i waited 11years to get my council house.Oh, then you get those that say the like of me should not have had the right to buy.
The fault wasn't with those buying,but guess what! Yep it was Maggie Thatcher.They took out money,but never put it but into building more homes for those in need.
Mad? to effing right i am.*


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I think the sale of council houses was one of the biggest cons ever. They encouraged people to buy, telling them that everyone had the right to own their own house, but what they were really doing was taking the money for some other extravagence and relieving themselves of the expense of maintaining those houses. Then when you are really old and need to go into care, they will make you sell it so they can grab the money back for a nursing home.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I would hate to have to bid like some beggar to have a basic need,for my family.
> Fact! i waited 11years to get my council house.Oh, then you get those that say the like of me should not have had the right to buy.
> The fault wasn't with those buying,but guess what! Yep it was Maggie Thatcher.They took out money,but never put it but into building more homes for those in need.
> Mad? to effing right i am.*


I don't get this, I don't understand how people can complain about not having a council house yet still insist they have a 'right' to buy - why should you have this 'right'? If you want to buy then buy a private sale house, if you can't afford this then move to an area where you can, that's what I had to do :confused1:

I really don't understand why social housing was sold off, it never should have happened. Where are all these new homes supposed to be built? people are already complaining that green belt land is bein over developed, small villages are now turning in to towns & the services (water, sewage systems) needed to suppy these new homes just cannot cope & money is not available for new supplies.

I am truly amazed at attitudes of some people who really cannot see just how lucky they are to be supported by councils & live in properties they would never be able to afford if they had to rent/buy in the private sector


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I don't get this, I don't understand how people can complain about not having a council house yet still insist they have a 'right' to buy - why should you have this 'right'? If you want to buy then buy a private sale house, if you can't afford this then move to an area where you can, that's what I had to do :confused1:
> 
> I really don't understand why social housing was sold off, it never should have happened. Where are all these new homes supposed to be built? people are already complaining that green belt land is bein over developed, small villages are now turning in to towns & the services (water, sewage systems) needed to suppy these new homes just cannot cope & money is not available for new supplies.
> 
> I am truly amazed at attitudes of some people who really cannot see just how lucky they are to be supported by councils & live in properties they would never be able to afford if they had to rent/buy in the private sector


*Take that up with Maggie Thatcher.*


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

I would love a council house that I could pay 100 pound or so a week for and not have a massive mortgage....buildings insurance and general maintenance. We have a lovely home....having been on the property ladder for over 25 years....but we have bought crap holes and done them up over time. Holidays......not for years.....meals out in restaurants.....birthdays only.....money tight.....oh yes....but people think that home owners are the lucky ones. No....we would have been laughed at as a young working couple asking for a council property....so we had to tie ourselves to years of debt....my OH having a heart attack in his early 40s due to stress of work. If council house tenants have to gut a property to get it habitable....think yourselves lucky.....honestly.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

chichi said:


> I would love a council house that I could pay 100 pound or so a week for and not have a massive mortgage....buildings insurance and general maintenance. We have a lovely home....having been on the property ladder for over 25 years....but we have bought crap holes and done them up over time. Holidays......not for years.....meals out in restaurants.....birthdays only.....money tight.....oh yes....but people think that home owners are the lucky ones. No....we would have been laughed at as a young working couple asking for a council property....so we had to tie ourselves to years of debt....my OH having a heart attack in his early 40s due to stress of work. If council house tenants have to gut a property to get it habitable....think yourselves lucky.....honestly.


*Do you honestly think we don't count ourselves lucky? I for one do.
As for the money spent on this house,we spent out even when it was still owned by the council.
What should council house tenants do? not bother to improve their homes?Because if i knew at any stage,my home would be taken away fron me,i would have left it the sh*t hole it was.*


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Do you honestly think we don't count ourselves lucky? I for one do.
> As for the money spent on this house,we spent out even when it was still owned by the council.
> What should council house tenants do? not bother to improve their homes?Because if i knew at any stage,my home would be tsken away fron me,i would have left it the sh*t hole it was.*


I don't think some people do think they are lucky. There has been a couple of posts on here regarding 'dreadful' properties, they sounded great to me compared to some of places I have lived & paid a fortune for 

I do know of people who have made improvements to their properties & can appreciate that some have spent alot of money to do this as they obviously take pride in where they live but I do think that things need to change. In furture people should maybe have tenancys which can be reviewed according to circumstance. Maybe this should be made clearer to people that these are not homes for life


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

we are in a private let which would be cheeaper to mortgage but we just dont have the deposit!

We are saving while paying rent (so not saving much!) and im hoping to retrain as a nurse so when both of us are working we will have a small deposit and can hopefully buy. Thats about 8 years away tho 

they really need to build more social housing, people really are in dire straits now! and i think you should take a cut if you have an extra room, if you dont want to take the fall get a lodger!
the council make it clear you shouldnt alter the house, its not yours and tenancies are not for life nor should they be.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I don't think some people do think they are lucky. There has been a couple of posts on here regarding 'dreadful' properties, they sounded great to me compared to some of places I have lived & paid a fortune for
> 
> I do know of people who have made improvements to their properties & can appreciate that some have spent alot of money to do this as they obviously take pride in where they live but I do think that things need to change. In furture people should maybe have tenancys which can be reviewed according to circumstance. Maybe this should be made clearer to people that these are not homes for life


*Going by what you and others have said,then peoples houses will no longer be their homes.( there's a big difference ). And if they know their houses will be taken away then why on earth would they pay to keep it in a "good" state?*


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Going by what you and others have said,then peoples houses will no longer be their homes.( there's a big difference ). And if they know their houses will be taken away then why on earth would they pay to keep it in a "good" state?*


your council house is no more your as this let is mine, you need to be prepared to downsize if you live in a large house on your own, young families need a turn to raise theirs.

The councils keep houses in a livable condition, so im not sure what you mean by good state? If you dont like the kitchen worktops for example that is your perogative and not the councils


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Going by what you and others have said,then peoples houses will no longer be their homes.( there's a big difference ). And if they know their houses will be taken away then why on earth would they pay to keep it in a "good" state?*


But you could say the same for those who were in private rental. I still kept my place looking nice, I painted & decorated when necessary (& with agreement from my landlord).

Obviously major work would be paid for by the owner of the property but you are probably more likely to get this done by the council if they are the owners than if you are as a private tenant.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Do you know i would give my right arm too be back in council housing again.I stupidly bought mine under the right too buy scheme.I now have a house here which i can leave to my children but year by year it is falling apart and i can't afford too fix it.Every month bills of House insurance and boiler cover go out,when if i could save that money i could fix things.The worst of it is if i sold it i would probably get £30000 less than what it should be worth because of the state of it and wouldn't be able to afford a deposit on another house in my area.I'm trapped here because of my own stupidity of doing what i thought was right at the time.

It seems that most of the council tenants aren't happy with their lot but neither are the home owners.


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

In this day and age the concept of a 'home' for life is more of a luxury. There are plenty of people out there who can't afford to buy and instead have to move around rental accommodation, as they are priced out of the areas they used to live in, need to share to afford the rent, or the properties are sold. Those who do manage to buy may have to sell it later in life. 

The reality is that it's tight for many people who don't receive benefits, and hearing complaints from those who do (about having to move or not being able to put up guests etc) because they think they should be entitled to luxuries beyond what is affordable for others, is not fair. 
By all means, say that it sucks that you are being moved somewhere less desirable - because it does - but it shouldn't be something that is objectionable and that the government should have to protect people on benefits from.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Bjt said:


> Do you know i would give my right arm too be back in council housing again.I stupidly bought mine under the right too buy scheme.I now have a house here which i can leave to my children but year by year it is falling apart and i can't afford too fix it.Every month bills of House insurance and boiler cover go out,when if i could save that money i could fix things.The worst of it is if i sold it i would probably get £30000 less than what it should be worth because of the state of it and wouldn't be able to afford a deposit on another house in my area.I'm trapped here because of my own stupidity of doing what i thought was right at the time.
> 
> It seems that most of the council tenants aren't happy with their lot but neither are the home owners.


I doubt you are alone. My mother got it right despite misgivings that we all had but it was all by accident really. She worked really hard and scrimped and scraped to pay the mortgage to buy their own house. That was a majorly important thing to her, even if she couldn't afford to furnish it. When she found herself alone in her seventies, she sold the house and rented a very cheap flat. Social services visited, or Help the Aged or some such, and decided the flat was not suitable and next thing she was in brand new independent ground floor flat, but with warden assistance and a community hall.

So she had the protection of the council plus all the equity from the house. Having spent most of her life worrying about money, she had the most glorious time during her last few years, God bless her!


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Going by what you and others have said,then peoples houses will no longer be their homes.( there's a big difference ). And if they know their houses will be taken away then why on earth would they pay to keep it in a "good" state?*


Your home is not the building you live in but the love that is contained with in it.

With the council you are however guarenteed a house for life unlike a private tennant who has to start the expensive process of deposits and references etc on a frequent basis.

Private tennants never have the luxury of believing they have a house for life, the majority keep thier homes nice and clean because they take pride in their homes.
The way a private landord ensures the property is being looked after is to inspected every 3 months - this could be done by councils, they could issues penalties for damage etc. 
Required repairs should be made by the council within agreed time limits, no one should be left without heating, with a leaky pipe or a dangerous boiler.
A house doesn't have to be decorated to an individuals tastes - if they don't like it then it's up to them if they want to change it with thier landlords/councils permission.
A house should be provided clean and safe everything else is up to the individual.
Council tenancies should be offered with the clear understanding of occupancy and a clear understanding that the tenancy could be terminated if the house is not maintained.
I really don't understand why someone believes they can rent someone elses house indefinately. And the fact a good council tennant will never be homeless should be enough in my opinion - a luxury me and many other millions of private tennants will never have.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Bjt said:


> Do you know i would give my right arm too be back in council housing again.I stupidly bought mine under the right too buy scheme.I now have a house here which i can leave to my children but year by year it is falling apart and i can't afford too fix it.Every month bills of House insurance and boiler cover go out,when if i could save that money i could fix things.The worst of it is if i sold it i would probably get £30000 less than what it should be worth because of the state of it and wouldn't be able to afford a deposit on another house in my area.I'm trapped here because of my own stupidity of doing what i thought was right at the time.
> 
> It seems that most of the council tenants aren't happy with their lot but neither are the home owners.


Am so sorry you are in this predicament but this is probably a real problem for many people. As you say the cost of repairs is so high that people are having to try & postpone these which can mean the problem gets worse.

Although I have my own home (well, it's mortgaged), we pay alot in mortgage costs each month & have no spare money to carry out repairs. This years heavy rain meant the front room soaked up alot of water & we then realised we have no damp prooffing so the plaster was literally falling off the walls. The re-pointing on one side is almost non existant so we will have to also do that asap but as well as the cost it is finding the time as we both work fulltime.

I'm lucky in that my OH is fit & healthy so can do alot of the work but we still struggle. I am also lucky in that I do love my house (despite it being lopsided, covered in mud & dog/cat hair, having 3rd hand furniture & mice!) but it's a constant struggle to pay bills especially at the moment.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm lost 
Are they actually talking about forcing people to move or just not support people to live in a house that's too big for them?

The first I don't agree with. I was bought up in a council house, it was our home, my father died there, my mother wanted to stay there even though she was on her own for a few years before deciding she should move to somewhere smaller because of her age.

I would have been horrified if she had been forced out. As it was she was offered help to downsize as she was a pensioner by then.

None of us would have expected her to receive more income than a person in a small place. 
Why should she have received more?


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

K337 said:


> In this day and age the concept of a 'home' for life is more of a luxury. There are plenty of people out there who can't afford to buy and instead have to move around rental accommodation, as they are priced out of the areas they used to live in, need to share to afford the rent, or the properties are sold. Those who do manage to buy may have to sell it later in life.
> 
> The reality is that it's tight for many people who don't receive benefits, and hearing complaints from those who do (about having to move or not being able to put up guests etc) because they think they should be entitled to luxuries beyond what is affordable for others, is not fair.
> By all means, say that it sucks that you are being moved somewhere less desirable - because it does - but it shouldn't be something that is objectionable and that the government should have to protect people on benefits from.


To be honest I think it is damn unfair to ask people who have spent their whole lives invested in one little country village (that they have lived in since they were little children) to move to a totally undesirable town area filled with crime and druggies just so some younger family can take their old home

Why should we , just because our families have moved out , have to spend the rest our lives scared to go outdoors incase we get attacked or burgled because of the dump we were forced to move to ?
Why should we have to move away from a place where we grew up and where all our friends are to go to some lonely flat where we know no-one and quite frankly would be too scared to get to know anyone , just so some other family can have our old house ?

You have zero idea where the place my friend has been offered is , as I said its full of druggies , thieves and worse
I wouldnt wish that area on anyone and my friend is scared stiff that she may have no choice but to go there

What is fair about that ?


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2012)

Bjt said:


> Do you know i would give my right arm too be back in council housing again.I stupidly bought mine under the right too buy scheme.I now have a house here which i can leave to my children but year by year it is falling apart and i can't afford too fix it.Every month bills of House insurance and boiler cover go out,when if i could save that money i could fix things.The worst of it is if i sold it i would probably get £30000 less than what it should be worth because of the state of it and wouldn't be able to afford a deposit on another house in my area.I'm trapped here because of my own stupidity of doing what i thought was right at the time.
> 
> It seems that most of the council tenants aren't happy with their lot but neither are the home owners.





Cleo38 said:


> Am so sorry you are in this predicament but this is probably a real problem for many people. As you say the cost of repairs is so high that people are having to try & postpone these which can mean the problem gets worse.
> 
> Although I have my own home (well, it's mortgaged), we pay alot in mortgage costs each month & have no spare money to carry out repairs. This years heavy rain meant the front room soaked up alot of water & we then realised we have no damp prooffing so the plaster was literally falling off the walls. The re-pointing on one side is almost non existant so we will have to also do that asap but as well as the cost it is finding the time as we both work fulltime.
> 
> I'm lucky in that my OH is fit & healthy so can do alot of the work but we still struggle. I am also lucky in that I do love my house (despite it being lopsided, covered in mud & dog/cat hair, having 3rd hand furniture & mice!) but it's a constant struggle to pay bills especially at the moment.


if your on low incomes or benefits there is such a scheme called 'Home Repair Assistance Schemes / Grants/ Loans' that are run by the local authority , i don;t know how easy they are to get or whether they are still available (doing a quick google seem to be!) but definitely worth looking into if you need urgent works to your home and cant afford to carry them out.
Home Repair Assistance UK - Google Search


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

rona said:


> I'm lost
> Are they actually talking about forcing people to move or just not support people to live in a house that's too big for them?
> 
> The first I don't agree with. I was bought up in a council house, it was our home, my father died there, my mother wanted to stay there even though she was on her own for a few years before deciding she should move to somewhere smaller because of her age.
> ...


My understanding is that housing benefit is being cut if your home is under occupied -I don't think the council are 'forcing' anyone out at present - although the discussion has evolved 
Bedroom rules (Under-occupancy)

I actually think these new rules will hit private tennants claiming housing benefit much more than council tennants - as a private tennant has much higher moving costs (reference, deposit etc) - if they need to move somewhere smaller they may not have the funds to do so nor be able to afford their current rent with the cut in benefits.


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

I think it's a good idea. How many home owners want to buy a home with a spare bedroom and therefore pay thousands of pounds more to achieve that? Why should council tenants have that luxury provided for free? I have been a council tenant in the past and it never for one minute crossed my mind that I should be entitled to a 2 bedroom home so I could have the luxury of a spare bedroom for guests. Why should tax payers pay more to those who receive housing benefit just so the tenant's guests don't have to stay at a travelodge, or similar?

Unfortunately the top and bottom of renting a house (privately or council) is that you never actually own that house, and never have the right to stay there indefinitely. Council houses are built to meet varying needs and families, so if your needs no longer justify the extra space it's only fair that someone else who _needs_ the space receives it.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Those moaning about the state of their council house , we bought out place for 175,000 it had no carpets, 50 years worth of chain smoking , all the walls was yellow and when you used a steam wallpaper stripper it dripped brown water on you  the only unit in the kitchen was the one with the sink in it ! Every room has been gutted/ re plastered new windows/ kitchen / bathroom . We have spent over 20k doing this and at the end of the day we still only have a house which is now worth 165k due to the slump in the market so we are 30k down and it's still only a 3 bed ex council house !!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Before I got a mortgage to buy the house I'm currently paying for, I was renting a property up the road less than a mile away, paying £750 pcm, the oil for less than 12 months cost over £3,000 and we also paid probably in the region of £500 for other solid fuels. That's not including all the other bills, and nothing in the house worked, it was freezing cold and damp. Not only wouldn't I be eligible for a council house, but I haven't and won't claim benefits because I think they should be for people who really need them, not for people who think they are theirs by right simply to claim, and that's not directed at anyone at all, just what I believe.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

diablo said:


> if your on low incomes or benefits there is such a scheme called 'Home Repair Assistance Schemes / Grants/ Loans' that are run by the local authority , i don;t know how easy they are to get or whether they are still available (doing a quick google seem to be!) but definitely worth looking into if you need urgent works to your home and cant afford to carry them out.
> Home Repair Assistance UK - Google Search


Thanks for that! We are both on reasonable wages believe it or not!! My OH is self emplyed & has had quite alot of periods between jobs, coupled with a couple of years ago when he broke his ankle & was off work for 6mths, we are still trying to catch up. Despite our wages we still struggle as the cost of living just seems so high at the moment as everyoine is feeling. Even our weekly shop is costing more & more & that is just basic food stuff & own brands - no fancy treats anymore!

Anyway back on to topic .... I do agree that people should have to pay the extra rent if they are living in a home that is bigger than they require. I also think that in *future* people should have a tenancy & be aware that they would be moved should their circumstances change.

I would not agree to forcibly move people, especially elderly people who have spent their lives in one home under the assmption that it would theirs for life.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Thank you,Diablo.


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

Mese said:


> To be honest I think it is damn unfair to ask people who have spent their whole lives invested in one little country village (that they have lived in since they were little children) to move to a totally undesirable town area filled with crime and druggies just so some younger family can take their old home
> 
> Why should we , just because our families have moved out , have to spend the rest our lives scared to go outdoors incase we get attacked or burgled because of the dump we were forced to move to ?
> Why should we have to move away from a place where we grew up and where all our friends are to go to some lonely flat where we know no-one and quite frankly would be too scared to get to know anyone , just so some other family can have our old house ?
> ...


Many people without benefits are facing the same situation. They can't afford to rent or own their homes now and have to move to a location where they don't know anyone, it's a nightmare to get anywhere on public transport and their neighbours aren't the people they'd want to mix with, the places they can afford aren't in the best of repair and they are looking at possibly having to do it all over again in the short term future.

I'm not saying its a good situation for anyone to be in, but how is it fair for someone who receives welfare to expect more/better than those who don't? It goes against the whole idea of being for those who need it most, and surely if that approach is taken and applied then it really does become an issue of people being better off on benefits.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

diablo said:


> if your on low incomes or benefits there is such a scheme called 'Home Repair Assistance Schemes / Grants/ Loans' that are run by the local authority , i don;t know how easy they are to get or whether they are still available (doing a quick google seem to be!) but definitely worth looking into if you need urgent works to your home and cant afford to carry them out.
> Home Repair Assistance UK - Google Search


Just a word of warning. If you apply for one of their grants, they will ask you to get an estimate from a local specialist. Don't tell the workman that you are getting a council grant or you will not get an estimate.

I was given a grant for rewiring and told to get an electrician to give a quote and confirm that it needed doing. I had six, the first four came out but I never saw an estimate, the last two I didn't tell and I got my estimate straight away.

I found out that they don't want to do work if the council are paying because they take six months to settle the bill.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

K337 said:


> Many people without benefits are facing the same situation. They can't afford to rent or own their homes now and have to move to a location where they don't know anyone, it's a nightmare to get anywhere on public transport and their neighbours aren't the people they'd want to mix with, the places they can afford aren't in the best of repair and they are looking at possibly having to do it all over again in the short term future.
> 
> I'm not saying its a good situation for anyone to be in, but how is it fair for someone who receives welfare to expect more/better than those who don't? It goes against the whole idea of being for those who need it most, and surely if that approach is taken and applied then it really does become an issue of people being better off on benefits.


Im never going to agree with this , not after sitting trying to comfort my friend who is terrified of being made to move away from her comfort zone and the people who will help her when she is fighting breast cancer all because some damn government screwed up over money ... welfare or not where is peoples humanity making a sick women who is already pretty scared even more scared

Sod young families , sod workers rights versus welfares rights , sod money , whatever happened to basic decency towards other human beings
Oh yeah , sod them too I guess


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

Fleur said:


> My understanding is that housing benefit is being cut if your home is under occupied -I don't think the council are 'forcing' anyone out at present - although the discussion has evolved
> Bedroom rules (Under-occupancy)
> 
> I actually think these new rules will hit private tennants claiming housing benefit much more than council tennants - as a private tennant has much higher moving costs (reference, deposit etc) - if they need to move somewhere smaller they may not have the funds to do so nor be able to afford their current rent with the cut in benefits.


These changes do not affect those who rent privately but are on housing benefit. We already only get an allowance for the number of bedrooms we qualify so anyone living in a house with more bedrooms then required already has to pay the extra if the rent is higher then benefit.

Although I know the allowance has already gone down but this happened about a year ago.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Just a word of warning. If you apply for one of their grants, they will ask you to get an estimate from a local specialist. Don't tell the workman that you are getting a council grant or you will not get an estimate.
> 
> I was given a grant for rewiring and told to get an electrician to give a quote and confirm that it needed doing. I had six, the first four came out but I never saw an estimate, the last two I didn't tell and I got my estimate straight away.
> 
> I found out that they don't want to do work if the council are paying because they take six months to settle the bill.


i have no idea how it works  all i do know is it were a well advertised scheme around here (by nextdoor) most works i think were carried out by 'street' something or other around here  ?? nextdoor had brand new windows all round / front / back door fitted under this scheme so maybe everything differs from area to area ?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

SandyR said:


> These changes do not affect those who rent privately but are on housing benefit. We already only get an allowance for the number of bedrooms we qualify so anyone living in a house with more bedrooms then required already has to pay the extra if the rent is higher then benefit.
> 
> Although I know the allowance has already gone down but this happened about a year ago.


Thanks I didn't know that - as I've never claimed housing benefit


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Mese said:


> To be honest I think it is damn unfair to ask people who have spent their whole lives invested in one little country village (that they have lived in since they were little children) to move to a totally undesirable town area filled with crime and druggies just so some younger family can take their old home
> 
> Why should we , just because our families have moved out , have to spend the rest our lives scared to go outdoors incase we get attacked or burgled because of the dump we were forced to move to ?
> Why should we have to move away from a place where we grew up and where all our friends are to go to some lonely flat where we know no-one and quite frankly would be too scared to get to know anyone , just so some other family can have our old house ?
> ...


Well i grew up in a 4 bedroom house so being that Im used to all the spcae I think the council should house me in something similar, and NOT with the Undesirables 
why should those young families be stuck in shoeboxes while someone who's kids are long gone live in a house with 1/2 extra bedrooms at the councils expense?
A council house isnt for life and to be complacant enough not to get on the property ladder for a house in the area you want to live in because you expect to live in a large underoccupied council house is downright stupid imo.

NO ONE wants to live in an undesirable area, but the rest of us get on with it. I was kicked out at 16, stayed in homeless unit while working and going to uni till i could afford a private let. It had no central heating, damp and single glazed windows, i lived next to smack dealers. But i worked my way up as should everyone else.
What makes you better than everyone else that you and your friends should have council houses in a nice village and everyone else gets stuck with the druggies?

And FYI I grew up and all my family still live in Parkhead in Glasgow where a funny look gets you stabbed so dont tell me i dont know rough.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Bjt said:


> There is an old couple down the road from me that have a 4 bedroom home and refuse too move,perhaps this will sort it out so that a family can live there, preferably a nice one.


I don`t think they can be forced to move, only asked. If they are an old couple they may have work locally, know the neighbours well and be well established there, so I kind of understand where they are coming from.... Seem to recall Abu Hamzas wife was in a very pricey house but the council said they can`t force her to move, only ask her.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

diablo said:


> i have no idea how it works  all i do know is it were a well advertised scheme around here (by nextdoor) most works i think were carried out by 'street' something or other around here  ?? nextdoor had brand new windows all round / front / back door fitted under this scheme so maybe everything differs from area to area ?


It works the same. You can get a grant under certain circumstances for anything considered essential, like my rewiring. But the council do not do the work themselves, except I think if it is adapting something for a wheelchair or whatever. They tell you you can have the money, get a quote or two, but tradesmen won't bother if they think they might have to wait for the council to pay them. That is what one of them told me when I complained about not getting anything back from the others.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Starlite said:


> Well i grew up in a 4 bedroom house so being that Im used to all the spcae I think the council should house me in something similar, and NOT with the Undesirables
> why should those young families be stuck in shoeboxes while someone who's kids are long gone live in a house with 1/2 extra bedrooms at the councils expense?
> A council house isnt for life and to be complacant enough not to get on the property ladder for a house in the area you want to live in because you expect to live in a large underoccupied council house is downright stupid imo.
> 
> ...


What makes me better , nothing does of course
I did grow up in a nice area and its where I live now , it was pure luck I was born where I am , its all I know and all my friend knows , a nice quiet friendly village where everyone knows everyone else and looks out for them

The kind of place you describe your area as is not something I have ever experienced in my life , why the hell would I deliberately go and live there , it would scare me ridgeless , it sounds terrifying

if the council wants people to move out of their homes at least offer them a decent place to live , not expect them to leave a nice area for a slum with druggies and thieves as neighbours , a place where you would get stabbed for looking at someone , bleeding hell 

Sorry if thats what you are used to but im not and neither is my friend and why in hell should we be expected to , neither of us have the mindset to deal with that kind of an area or people who would behave that way , we would end up terrified for the rest of our natural days

And FYI neither of us has had it easy , everyone has their hard times , but its a damn sight easier with friends and neighbours you have had for years who you know will be there for you
I dont really care if people think im being unreasonable in not wanting to move , this is my home and my life , whats wrong in fighting for it


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Mese said:


> What makes me better , nothing does of course
> I did grow up in a nice area and its where I live now , it was pure luck I was born where I am , its all I know and all my friend knows , a nice quiet friendly village where everyone knows everyone else and looks out for them
> 
> The kind of place you describe your area as is not something I have ever experienced in my life , why the hell would I deliberately go and live there , it would scare me ridgeless , it sounds terrifying
> ...


I stay in an OK part of the East End now and we have still had an attempted burglary and the car broken into twice in a year, Glasgow is just "that way" unless you have money and live in the West End lol. 
Just because you are used to violence and sirens doesnt mean you like it tho, id move somewhere picturesque in heartbeat but the fact is we all need to live within in our means, we cant expect someone to foot the bill.

Young families need a chance to be able to let their kids out and play, to have a life and not box.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Starlite said:


> I stay in an OK part of the East End now and we have still had an attempted burglary and the car broken into twice in a year, Glasow is just "that way" unless you have money and live in the West End lol.
> Just because you are used to violence and sirens doesnt mean you like it tho, id move somewhere picturesque in heartbeat but the fact is we all need to live within in our means, we cant expect someone to foot the bill.
> 
> Young families need a chance to be able to let their kids out and play, to have a life and not box.


Fair enough , I get that , but why should they get it at someone elses expense ?

Maybe im just too old fashioned and believe in community because thats what I was brought up in and live in now , to not have that when you most need it ... very bad

you see young kids playing in front gardens ..... I see thousands of middle aged and elderly people through no fault of their own being isolated , alone and scared

Why not just euthanise everyone over 50 and be done with it
Everyones on about what the young need ... what about what people my age and older need , its not because we havent tried but sometimes getting on the housing ladder is almost impossible so we did what we could , does that mean we have to suffer now


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

I also think if the council expect people to move after they have spent so much money on the property they should give them somewhere thats decorated and carpeted and a decent garden already because the way they let the houses round here is disgusting!

Honestly, the house thats in the pictures on this thread is like buckingham palace compared to the state of our house! We lived for 4 days with no kitchen windows, all we had were the big bar-it things they put over the windows to stop people breaking in...they left us without heating for over a week and we had to get our own plastering done because the place was such a mess and they wouldnt do anything for us...every single room was seriously bad! ..why didnt we turn it down? Well we wanted to move away from the local druggy next door.

Yes i will be super p1ssed if the council decide they want to force us out when the kids have flown the nest and i will point blank refuse to move into a sh1t hole!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rona said:


> I'm lost
> Are they actually talking about forcing people to move or just not support people to live in a house that's too big for them?


My understanding is they are not exactly forcing anyone to move, just that if your house is under occupied housing benefit will be reduced. So I suppose indirectly it could mean you have to move if you cannot find the additional money to pay the rent. What seems unfair to me is these cuts don't seem to make any concession if they have no smaller suitable properties available


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> But ... you have still been given a large house for your family & will pay alot less rent than those in private accomodation. Many people would never be able to afford a 4 bed house
> 
> You should still consider yourself lucky, alot of people who will not be allocated council housing & will be paying an absolute fortune for private accomodation that is below standard. I know I was one of them years ago!


I dont know where i have said i dont consider myself lucky?????
Yes we are extremely lucky! Not only do we have a house that we can settle and have another child if we wish, the kids have a fantastic school and what more could i ask for? It makes it all worth while the work we have done.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> *I also think if the council expect people to move after they have spent so much money on the property they should give them somewhere thats decorated and carpeted and a decent garden already because the way they let the houses round here is disgusting!*
> 
> Honestly, the house thats in the pictures on this thread is like buckingham palace compared to the state of our house! We lived for 4 days with no kitchen windows, all we had were the big bar-it things they put over the windows to stop people breaking in...they left us without heating for over a week and we had to get our own plastering done because the place was such a mess and they wouldnt do anything for us...every single room was seriously bad! ..why didnt we turn it down? Well we wanted to move away from the local druggy next door.
> 
> Yes i will be super p1ssed if the council decide they want to force us out when the kids have flown the nest and i will point blank refuse to move into a sh1t hole!


But why should they  No one will decorate the next place that we buy for us , as i've already said we have lost 30k on our current house in 5 years . We bought then as i was pregnant with our 2nd child and lived in a 2 bed flat, with our son and i was having a girl. We lived in a one bed private rent flat until just before my son was 3 , the council would even entertain us for a place !

That 20k on decorating, new boiler, double glazing, kitchen , bathroom . Was not done because we wanted a different colour scheme it was done to make the house liveable !

That's taken us 5 years to do, haven't you been in your place a few months...... lucky you being able to get it done in that time.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Pointermum said:


> But why should they  No one will decorate the next place that we buy for us , as i've already said we have lost 30k on our current house in 5 years . We bought then as i was pregnant with our 2nd child and lived in a 2 bed flat, with our son and i was having a girl. We lived in a one bed private rent flat until just before my son was 3 , the council would even entertain us for a place !


But why should people be expected to add value to a council house by making it nice and be forced into a dingy sh1t hole why someone else is sitting pretty on all your hard work?

With all due respect when you buy a property that is your choice what state you buy it in, no one is twisting your arm up your back...however many people who rent from the council have no choice what state the property is in they move into..i know we didnt.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> This is probably going to make me VERY unpopular but I really don't care!
> 
> Why do people who are on benefits think they have a RIGHT to moan about the HANDOUTS they get??? Surely they should be grateful that they live in a country where there is such a facility.
> 
> So benefits are being cut - well hey, guess what - there's a great big feckin' hole in the UK's financial pocket and there is more money going out of the pot than there is going in! Something needs to give.


It certainly does. But why does it have to be the poorest members of society that have to give when - for example - corporate tax avoidance is running at around 25 billion per year? Plug up the loopholes in that; use the money to build social housing, and you start the road to recovery. Quite apart from the revenue that will come with rent; the building will put more people in work, who will spend more. More spending means more manufacturing is needed. More maufacturing means more jobs. More jobs means more spending etc etc etc until the economy spirals out of the recession. And all done without people who genuinely need benefits - ie the poor, the disabled, the old - having to foot the bill for the rest of the country.


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

harley bear said:


> But why should people be expected to add value to a council house by making it nice and be forced into a dingy sh1t hole why someone else is sitting pretty on all your hard work?
> 
> With all due respect when you buy a property that is your choice what state you buy it in, no one is twisting your arm up your back...however many people who rent from the council have no choice what state the property is in they move into..i know we didnt.


Can I ask why you don't rent privately if you do not claim any benefits. Would you not prefer to have more choice.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> But why should people be expected to add value to a council house by making it nice and be forced into a dingy sh1t hole why someone else is sitting pretty on all your hard work?
> 
> With all due respect when you buy a property that is your choice what state you buy it in, no one is twisting your arm up your back...however many people who rent from the council have no choice what state the property is in they move into..i know we didnt.


No it's what we could afford to buy  Otherwise i would of bought a palace and not a ex council house


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> But why should people be expected to add value to a council house by making it nice and be forced into a dingy sh1t hole why someone else is sitting pretty on all your hard work?
> 
> With all due respect when you buy a property that is your choice what state you buy it in, no one is twisting your arm up your back...however many people who rent from the council have no choice what state the property is in they move into..i know we didnt.


Well private rent or buy a place , if us who don't get the option of a council house have so much choice not to buy a s**t hole


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

SandyR said:


> Can I ask why you don't rent privately if you do not claim any benefits. Would you not prefer to have more choice.


We didnt have a deposit and couldnt find anywhere that would accept animals...and why would we want to move from a secure tenancy when i have my kids security to think about? It would make no sense.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I also think if the council expect people to move after they have spent so much money on the property they should give them somewhere thats decorated and carpeted and a decent garden already because the way they let the houses round here is disgusting!


Councils should bring in the same policy that goes with MOD housing. The property must be returned to the exact same standard as it was when you moved in. That means no holes in the walls, the same magnolia coloured walls, and bumps, bashes or dents repaired.

This is also a similar policy for private rental - the property should be left in the same condition as found unless any alterations have been agreed by the landlord.

Councils don't put enough rules in place for their properties and it would be a lot fairer if they did - both for prospective tenants and also for the people who pay into the system and financially support this system.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> Councils should bring in the same policy that goes with MOD housing. The property must be returned to the exact same standard as it was when you moved in. That means no holes in the walls, the same magnolia coloured walls, and bumps, bashes or dents repaired.
> 
> This is also a similar policy for private rental - the property should be left in the same condition as found unless any alterations have been agreed by the landlord.
> 
> Councils don't put enough rules in place for their properties and it would be a lot fairer if they did - both for prospective tenants and also for the people who pay into the system and financially support this system.


Totally agree! Also i think they should have regular inspections because some of the places i have been into that are rented you have to wipe your feet on the way out! :scared:


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

harley bear said:


> We didnt have a deposit and couldnt find anywhere that would accept animals...and why would we want to move from a secure tenancy when i have my kids security to think about? It would make no sense.


Ok I see. Sorry council houses are a bit of a mystery to me. So can anyone go on the list then of we're you already in a council house due to previous circumstances which have now improved and then moved within the council. Sorry if I'm noisy just tell me to go away lol


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Pointermum said:


> No it's what we could afford to buy  Otherwise i would of bought a palace and not a ex council house


There was always the option to buy in a less desirable area.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> There was always the option to buy in a less desirable area.


We did hence we live in a ex council house  Otherwise we would be in a nicer area with only two beds


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

SandyR said:


> Ok I see. Sorry council houses are a bit of a mystery to me. So can anyone go on the list then of we're you already in a council house due to previous circumstances which have now improved and then moved within the council. Sorry if I'm noisy just tell me to go away lol


No its ok..we were moved into a council flat because we were living above an alcoholic schitz who kept setting his house on fire and we couldnt afford to move. Just because someone works and doesnt receive any benefits it doesnt automatically mean they have enough money to private rent or buy. 
To be perfectly honest i would much rather people be renting houses off the council who have got jobs and paying their way than see people given FREE housing and claiming every benefit they can fiddle out the government.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It certainly does. But why does it have to be the poorest members of society that have to give when - for example - corporate tax avoidance is running at around 25 billion per year? Plug up the loopholes in that; use the money to build social housing, and you start the road to recovery. Quite apart from the revenue that will come with rent; the building will put more people in work, who will spend more. More spending means more manufacturing is needed. More maufacturing means more jobs. More jobs means more spending etc etc etc until the economy spirals out of the recession. And all done without people who genuinely need benefits - ie the poor, the disabled, the old - having to foot the bill for the rest of the country.


You have TOTALLY ignored the whole point of my post which is that people who are getting benefits constantly moan about them. When all is said and done, the receiving of benefits is having money GIVEN to you. It is not a loan, it doesn't need to be handed back. It is a 'gift' but the recipients don't accept that they are lucky to get this gift and show nothing but ingratitude for it and behave as though this 'gift' is their God given right and entitlement.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

harley bear said:


> I also think if the council expect people to move after they have spent so much money on the property they should give them somewhere thats decorated and carpeted and a decent garden already because the way they let the houses round here is disgusting!
> 
> Honestly, the house thats in the pictures on this thread is like buckingham palace compared to the state of our house! We lived for 4 days with no kitchen windows, all we had were the big bar-it things they put over the windows to stop people breaking in...they left us without heating for over a week and we had to get our own plastering done because the place was such a mess and they wouldnt do anything for us...every single room was seriously bad! ..why didnt we turn it down? Well we wanted to move away from the local druggy next door.
> 
> Yes i will be super p1ssed if the council decide they want to force us out when the kids have flown the nest and i will point blank refuse to move into a sh1t hole!


But what if they request you to down size? Doesn't always mean moving to a sh*t hole? Do you really think you are still entitled to your 4 bed house?

You wanted to move & the council moved you, there are many people who own their own homes that can't afford to move so again you are lucky in that respect that the council allowed you this choice.

As for buying my own property yes I did (well am still paying the mortage) as the council would not have housed me. Private renting was just as expensive as paying a mortgae so I saved incredebily hard to get enough money for a deposit for a 1 bed flat.

I then met my OH & we decided to buy a house. We couldn;t afford one in the county where we used to live so had to move away. We have to make a lrge payment each month to cover our mortgae but if we ever found ourselves in a position where we could no longer afford our house we would have to sell & down size. I don't know why that's something we would have to consider doing yet some people in council homes don't seem to think the same should apply to them :confused1:


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

harley bear said:


> No its ok..we were moved into a council flat because we were living above an alcoholic schitz who kept setting his house on fire and we couldnt afford to move. Just because someone works and doesnt receive any benefits it doesnt automatically mean they have enough money to private rent or buy.
> To be perfectly honest i would much rather people be renting houses off the council who have got jobs and paying their way than see people given FREE housing and claiming every benefit they can fiddle out the government.


It's good to here that the council help people in need even if they are not on benefits. Gives me hope for the future if my landlord ever sells our house. We would really struggle to find somewhere being selfemployed bad credit and on benefit with pets and I often worry what we would do.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

SandyR said:


> It's good to here that the council help people in need even if they are not on benefits. Gives me hope for the future if my landlord ever sells our house. We would really struggle to find somewhere being selfemployed bad credit and on benefit with pets and I often worry what we would do.


Yes, they do help people in that situation. In our area the councils keep a large percentage of housing for immigrants.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> But what if they request you to down size? Doesn't always mean moving to a sh*t hole? Do you really think you are still entitled to your 4 bed house?
> 
> You wanted to move & the council moved you, there are many people who own their own homes that can't afford to move so again you are lucky in that respect that the council allowed you this choice.
> 
> ...


So iff you sell and downsize you take the money and use it for starting fresh and adding to your new property.
Have you ever seen an empty council property and the state they are left in for rental?


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

SandyR said:


> It's good to here that the council help people in need even if they are not on benefits. Gives me hope for the future if my landlord ever sells our house. We would really struggle to find somewhere being selfemployed bad credit and on benefit with pets and I often worry what we would do.


Good luck in Kent :scared:


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> So iff you sell and downsize you take the money and use it for starting fresh and adding to your new property.
> Have you ever seen an empty council property and the state they are left in for rental?


You missed the point , they would have to sell as they couldn't afford it. They may walk away with no deposit , nothing . As we would if we sold now.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Pointermum said:


> You missed the point , they would have to sell as they couldn't afford it. They may walk away with no deposit , nothing . As we would if we sold now.


Sooooo then you apply for a council house 

Im not going to apologize or explain myself for having a council house and not receiving benefits and no i wouldnt move into a private rented house..why should i move before my kids have left home? If we do buy this house then its none of anyone elses business and yes i will be p1ssed if we get forced out in the distant future. 
Like i said i would much rather see working familys in houses such as ours then see people who are scrounging benefits and screwing the system, at least we pay rent and council tax etc.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I was housed by the council when Jake was 8 months old. Until then we lived with my mum and were very overcrowded.

I got a maisonette. I was lucky it was ground floor as it meant I had a small garden.
The washing got stolen off the line if you left it out, and police helicopters circled overhead every night. Every wall was covered in dark brown exterior paint -the stuff with sand in it, so I got a good few grazes before I managed to sand it all down and repaint it.

I was rehoused, again by the council, when Jake was 2. Back then you could go on a list for a different house of the same size.

This time I got a semi-detatched house with a huge garden. Every room was covered in 5 layers of wall paper that had been painted with gloss. The previous owners were very elderly, and the son was moved to an old peoples home (as he couldnt look after himself, even with homehelp) when his mum died. They must have been chain smokers, as the whole place was dirty yellow from cigarette smoke.

I couldnt see out of the kitchen window because the huge garden was covered in 6ft high brambles.

I didn't moan about the state of either place - I knew I was lucky to have been given them in the first place. Yes it was hard work decorating, but I would rather that than not have a home at all.

It does annoy me when people moan about the state of houses they have been given to live in, especially when they pay a subsidised rent, or in some cases, no rent at all.

I would imagine some of the thousands of homeless people in this country would give their right arm just for a roof over their heads- whatever the colour of the paint.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

harley bear said:


> Sooooo then you apply for a council house
> 
> Im not going to apologize or explain myself for having a council house and not receiving benefits and no i wouldnt move into a private rented house..why should i move before my kids have left home? If we do buy this house then its none of anyone elses business and yes i will be p1ssed if we get forced out in the distant future.
> Like i said i would much rather see working familys in houses such as ours then see people who are scrounging benefits and screwing the system, at least we pay rent and council tax etc.


No one is asking you to apologise for having council accommodation - why would they? :confused1: I would disagree that it is not people business of council properties are sold off though

I do not have a problem with council accomodation & agree that working families should not be forced out for those on benefits. The only time I do find it difficult to undertsand is when you get working couples/familes on very good money who are in council accommodation, I don't think that's right tbh


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> Sooooo then you apply for a council house
> 
> Im not going to apologize or explain myself for having a council house and not receiving benefits and no i wouldnt move into a private rented house..why should i move before my kids have left home? If we do buy this house then its none of anyone elses business and yes i will be p1ssed if we get forced out in the distant future.
> Like i said i would much rather see working familys in houses such as ours then see people who are scrounging benefits and screwing the system, at least we pay rent and council tax etc.


You must be SERIOUSLY lucky in your area, we was on the council list for over 3 years when there was 3 of us was in a one bed flat and was told basically we had no chance until our son was 7 years old , until then he could share with us or we could make the front room into a bedroom . The front room could fit one 2 seater sofa and a tv in it and that was it, the kitchen was tiny no room for table ect . You make it sound as if we all have the option on a council house and have turned it down , that is just soo untrue !!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> No one is asking you to apologise for having council accommodation - why would they? :confused1: I would disagree that it is not people business of council properties are sold off though
> 
> I do not have a problem with council accomodation & agree that working families should not be forced out for those on benefits. The only time I do find it difficult to undertsand is when you get working couples/familes on very good money who are in council accommodation, I don't think that's right tbh


It is not so easy to get a mortgage. I have often heard of couples paying more in rent than they would be on a mortgage but they still can't get one, and it is getting more and more difficult. Social housing was never about low incomes, it was about finding homes for people whether they could afford to buy or not. If people want to live in social housing and pay their way, I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> No one is asking you to apologise for having council accommodation - why would they? :confused1: I would disagree that it is not people business of council properties are sold off though
> 
> I do not have a problem with council accomodation & agree that working families should not be forced out for those on benefits. The only time I do find it difficult to undertsand is when you get working couples/familes on very good money who are in council accommodation, I don't think that's right tbh


I agree, i know of a couple who used to be on over 100k per anum and they are STILL in their council house..there is a difference between a wage where you live month by month and being on 'good money'



Pointermum said:


> You must be SERIOUSLY lucky in your area, we was on the council list for over 3 years when there was 3 of us was in a one bed flat and was told basically we had no chance until our son was 7 years old , until then he could share with us or we could make the front room into a bedroom . The front room could fit one 2 seater sofa and a tv in it and that was it, the kitchen was tiny no room for table ect . You make it sound as if we all have the option on a council house and have turned it down , that is just soo untrue !!


We are seriously lucky! I bid on houses in less desirable areas and we finished 6th (i think) for this house but because we had no convictions and wernt on benefits..(they have also brought this into these areas) we managed to become top of the list. And technically when we moved here we were only a family of 4 because i was still pregnant. We waited a total of two weeks from being put on the list to being offered the property. 
I know, we are seriously, seriously lucky and i will never say we are not! But i think the bad luck we have had for as many years as i can remember must have given way a little and let us have a break with this place.

We only managed to get a council place because our lives were in danger where we lived and the police rang the council and told them we needed to move asap.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> You have TOTALLY ignored the whole point of my post which is that people who are getting benefits constantly moan about them. When all is said and done, the receiving of benefits is having money GIVEN to you. It is not a loan, it doesn't need to be handed back. It is a 'gift' but the recipients don't accept that they are lucky to get this gift and show nothing but ingratitude for it and behave as though this 'gift' is their God given right and entitlement.


I ignored it on purpose - otherwise I would have had to answer about how it really saddens me that people constantly moan about how their taxes are going to help the disabled, old or poor who need benefits.

It's this attitude of, "You are disabled/poor/old/whatever so you need a helping hand; I'm going to give you that helping hand but only if you bow down and be humble and thankful and touch your forelock to me for giving you that gift," that really gets my goat.

Whatever happened to helping your fellow man? It went out the window with Thatcher and her policies and never came back.

And your main point may have been that people who get benefits moan that they can no longer afford to live, but you justified it by saying that cutting benefits _had_ to happen becasue there was no money for benefits. I was merely showing you that taking money from the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society in order for the rest of us to survive _does not have to happen_; that there is another way to generate money for housing, benefits, boosting the economy and getting rid of the debt.

It might not satisfy the self righteous, "I'm all right Jack so f--k you!" brigade - but that's another story entirely.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Social cleansing - pure and simple!! F***ing Tories!!!


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> Councils should bring in the same policy that goes with MOD housing. The property must be returned to the exact same standard as it was when you moved in. That means no holes in the walls, the same magnolia coloured walls, and bumps, bashes or dents repaired.
> 
> This is also a similar policy for private rental - the property should be left in the same condition as found unless any alterations have been agreed by the landlord.
> 
> Councils don't put enough rules in place for their properties and it would be a lot fairer if they did - both for prospective tenants and also for the people who pay into the system and financially support this system.


Oh God, not the dreaded cooker inspection :scared::scared::scared:


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I ignored it on purpose - otherwise I would have had to answer about how it really saddens me that people constantly moan about how their taxes are going to help the disabled, old or poor who need benefits.


Well tell you what, I will stop moaning about how the money I work hard to make and then hand a large wedge over to help those who need it when those who get it given to them stop moaning and whinging about how little they get and how they want more, more, more to have a nice cushty little life.

I have no objection to helping out those in need but I reserve the right to be bl**dy pissed off when all they do is moan that they want more and what they get given for free is not good enough.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> No one is asking you to apologise for having council accommodation - why would they? :confused1: I would disagree that it is not people business of council properties are sold off though
> 
> I do not have a problem with council accomodation & agree that working families should not be forced out for those on benefits. The only time I do find it difficult to undertsand is when you get working couples/familes on very good money who are in council accommodation, I don't think that's right tbh


As long as people pay their rent and council tax why does it matter? They might like living where they are and dont want to move.
Getting a mortgage isnt as easy as it was years ago.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Polimba said:


> Oh God, not the dreaded cooker inspection :scared::scared::scared:


Don't forget the dust on top of the door frames..... :lol:


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I ignored it on purpose - otherwise I would have had to answer about how it really saddens me that people constantly moan about how their taxes are going to help the disabled, old or poor who need benefits.


I think you'll find any moaning was about the right of entitlement people have with regards to benefits - not that taxes pay for them.



> It's this attitude of, "You are disabled/poor/old/whatever so you need a helping hand; I'm going to give you that helping hand but only if you bow down and be humble and thankful and touch your forelock to me for giving you that gift," that really gets my goat.


I don't see any of that attitude in the post you are referring to. I see peopled getting p'eed off with people that get housing and money as a gift, but then moaning about the gift not being good enough.



> Whatever happened to helping your fellow man? It went out the window with Thatcher and her policies and never came back.


Thats something you would have to take up with Thatcher. But to say she managed to change the thinking of single person since she came to, and then left power, is giving her an awful lot of credit.



> And your main point may have been that people who get benefits moan that they can no longer afford to live, but you justified it by saying that cutting benefits _had_ to happen becasue there was no money for benefits. I was merely showing you that taking money from the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society in order for the rest of us to survive _does not have to happen_; that there is another way to generate money for housing, benefits, boosting the economy and getting rid of the debt.


Not all the people claiming benefits are the poorest most vulnerable members of society though are they? I don't think anyone would cut benefits to the poorest and most vulnerable people - just cutting benefits to the people that play the system would save a huge amount of money.



> It might not satisfy the self righteous, "I'm all right Jack so f--k you!" brigade - but that's another story entirely.


If you are applying that to the writer of the post you are referring to, you are way off the mark


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

harley bear said:


> *Sooooo then you apply for a council house *
> Im not going to apologize or explain myself for having a council house and not receiving benefits and no i wouldnt move into a private rented house..why should i move before my kids have left home? If we do buy this house then its none of anyone elses business and yes i will be p1ssed if we get forced out in the distant future.
> Like i said i would much rather see working familys in houses such as ours then see people who are scrounging benefits and screwing the system, at least we pay rent and council tax etc.


The bolded bit - I don't know what to say to that, but maybe it explains what some people find annoying about the sense of entitlement to a council house. No-one should have to apologise or explain, but by the same token, why should those on benefits have to either?



newfiesmum said:


> It is not so easy to get a mortgage. I have often heard of couples paying more in rent than they would be on a mortgage but they still can't get one, and it is getting more and more difficult. Social housing was never about low incomes, it was about finding homes for people whether they could afford to buy or not. If people want to live in social housing and pay their way, I see nothing wrong with that.


It's not easy, no. That's why to move to where we wanted to be, I sold my house at very little profit and then we saved like mad for a couple of years in a rented house. With good credit you need a smaller deposit than you think. But I'm in agreement, people living in social housing, no problem at all...it seems unreasonable to expect to stay in houses bigger than needed or to complain about the colour of the paint when those who subsidise this housing get to suck this sort of thing and worse up as part of life though.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

I think the difference with working and living in a council house rather than a private rented property was that you couldnt paint the private house you had to be really careful what you did inside.Where having a council house you can decorate it to whatever standard you wanted.Some private landlords/ladies didnt do jack when you needed something fixing(been there done that).So its much easier to have a council house where you kinda get the help(eventually) from the council.And the rent isnt so expensive, and you dont have to pay a massive deposit for a council property.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

You know what, I've read all through this thread, anyone in this country is privileged. That's why we get people coming to this country to allegedly take advantage of the system because we provide a good standard of living. I've lived in some off the track locations, and spoken to some folks who accept as normal thing we see as nightmares. I still remember vividly speaking to a guy in Zanzibar, he had lost three children, but his remaining children he hoped would help provide an income into old age. Too much in this country is given away as if people deserve it in my opinion. And that's all I'll say on the matter


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> I think you'll find any moaning was about the right of entitlement people have with regards to benefits - not that taxes pay for them.


Really? How about this then?



MoggyBaby said:


> You can't expect working people to pay more income tax because they will stop working as they can't afford to do so and so the money going out of the pot increases.


Seems like moaning about taxes to me 



MCWillow said:


> Originally posted by Spellweaver: _It's this attitude of, "You are disabled/poor/old/whatever so you need a helping hand; I'm going to give you that helping hand but only if you bow down and be humble and thankful and touch your forelock to me for giving you that gift," that really gets my goat._
> 
> I don't see any of that attitude in the post you are referring to. I see peopled getting p'eed off with people that get housing and money as a gift, but then moaning about the gift not being good enough.


Really? How about this then?



MoggyBaby said:


> When all is said and done, the receiving of benefits is having money GIVEN to you. It is not a loan, it doesn't need to be handed back. It is a 'gift' but the recipients don't accept that they are lucky to get this gift and show nothing but ingratitude for it and behave as though this 'gift' is their God given right and entitlement.


Sound like expecting people to tug their forelock in gratitude to me 



MCWillow said:


> Thats something you would have to take up with Thatcher. But to say she managed to change the thinking of single person since she came to, and then left power, is giving her an awful lot of credit.


That's as may be - but that was where this feeling of "I'm looking out for myself" rather than "I'm looking out for my fellow man" began. Cameron epitomises it to a "T".



MCWillow said:


> Not all the people claiming benefits are the poorest most vulnerable members of society though are they? I don't think anyone would cut benefits to the poorest and most vulnerable people - just cutting benefits to the people that play the system would save a huge amount of money.


And how would you go about ensuring that benefits are not cut to the genuinely needy? They are cut across the board and the genuinely needy lose out because the cheats will find a way to circumvent any system. So the genuinely poor and needy just get poorer and needier - and then, because they have the temerity to point this out, they are accused of "always moaning" and "having to be grateful for their GIFT".



MCWillow said:


> If you are applying that to the writer of the post you are referring to, you are way off the mark


Well, I don't know the writer of this post as well as you obviously do. All I can go on is what she has written here - which is what I have responded to. So if, with your superior knowledge of this person, you believe she doesn't really mean what she has written, then perhaps you should have posted your angry little smiley at her


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Seems like moaning about taxes to me


No, its saying tax payers shouldnt have to pay more tax than they already do, to subsidise benefits.



> Sound like expecting people to tug their forelock in gratitude to me


No, its not asking for gratitude, its expecting not to receive ingratitude.



> That's as may be - but that was where this feeling of "I'm looking out for myself" rather than "I'm looking out for my fellow man" began. Cameron epitomises it to a "T".


So how do you propose to change that? What do you think any government can do to turn that around?



> And how would you go about ensuring that benefits are not cut to the genuinely needy? They are cut across the board and the genuinely needy lose out because the cheats will find a way to circumvent any system. So the genuinely poor and needy just get poorer and needier - and then, because they have the temerity to point this out, they are accused of "always moaning" and "having to be grateful for their GIFT".


How about the credit card scheme? The card is loaded with cash that can only be spent on essentials. People arent given endless amounts of cash for kids they churn out that they can't support.

No-one is asking them to be 'grateful' - they are expecting them to not be ungrateful. There is a difference.



> Well, I don't know the writer of this post as well as you obviously do. All I can go on is what she has written here - which is what I have responded to. So if, with your superior knowledge of this person, you believe she doesn't really mean what she has written, then perhaps you should have posted your angry little smiley at her


Yes, I do know her well, and I do have superior knowledge of her.

I do believe she meant what she wrote, unfortunately you have decided to twist her words for your own means - so the angry little smiley remains with you


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I'm so amused at some of the replies on this thread.Some people assume so much.
Just for the record i can i know only too well what its like not to have a penny to my name,or a roof over my head or one for my kids.So PLEASE don't tell me i have no right to moan.
As i have already said,somewhere,i waited 11 years to get my council house.We we moved in,it was in a state like it or not.Also there was no way of heating the place apart from having the cooker going,and a parafin heater.
Was i pleased to have gotten a house after all the waiting? you can bet your life i was.
Then when we could afford to do so we purchased it from the council,lets face it we would have been damn stupid not to.
How many of you would not have done the same?
But now,people like myself are in the "wrong" for doing so.
This government could easily get around this housing problem if they really wanted to.
For a start, stop handing out houses to kids as soon as they leave school and have kids.
*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> I waited 11 years to get my council house.We we moved in,it was in a state like it or not.Also there was no way of heating the place apart from having the cooker going,and a parafin heater.
> Was i pleased to have gotten a house after all the waiting? you can bet your life i was.
> Then when we could afford to do so we purchased it from the council,lets face it we would have been damn stupid not to.
> How many of you would not have done the same?
> But now,people like myself are in the "wrong" for doing so.


You tell em ******, its your life and you have only a duty to yourself to do the best for you and your family,goodluck toyou.

When I got divorced it was ME who had custody of two girls (4 and 6) cos "mum" didnt want them and then got put out on the street cos my ex lied in court and a judge gave her the HA property we were in, and she never again lived in it, so 3 of us were homeless, she then (without my knowledge) while having 1 kiddy for access went to the council and said she had custody of the child, just to get a council place.....and went shoplifting with her and got nicked and put in the cells WITH our daughter...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> No, its saying tax payers shouldnt have to pay more tax than they already do, to subsidise benefits


In other words, moaning about paying more taxes



MCWillow said:


> No, its not asking for gratitude, its expecting not to receive ingratitude.
> 
> No-one is asking them to be 'grateful' - they are expecting them to not be ungrateful. There is a difference.


Sorry, but wanting people to acknowledge that they are lucky to be receiving a gift is expecting people to express gratitude. You can play Humpty Dumpty and pay the words extra to make them mean what you want them to mean all day, but the rest of us will go on the proper meanings.



MCWillow said:


> So how do you propose to change that? What do you think any government can do to turn that around?


I haven't the foggiest. How do you make people have a conscience and think about others rather than just think about themselves?



MCWillow said:


> How about the credit card scheme? The card is loaded with cash that can only be spent on essentials. People arent given endless amounts of cash for kids they churn out that they can't support.


And that would stop the cheats how? They would spend the vouchers as intended and then work on the side to pay for anything else. And as for people being given cash for kids - perhaps we ought to stop child benefit for people who are working, or at least means test it. Why should someone automaticaly receive this benefit?



MCWillow said:


> Yes, I do know her well, and I do have superior knowledge of her.
> 
> I do believe she meant what she wrote, unfortunately you have decided to twist her words for your own means - so the angry little smiley remains with you


It's very touching that you stand up for your friend, but do get a grip. Twisitng her words for my own means! :lol: :lol: :lol: How melodramatic! What means would they be then? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm so amused at some of the replies on this thread.Some people assume so much.
> Just for the record i can i know only too well what its like not to have a penny to my name,or a roof over my head or one for my kids.So PLEASE don't tell me i have no right to moan.
> As i have already said,somewhere,i waited 11 years to get my council house.We we moved in,it was in a state like it or not.Also there was no way of heating the place apart from having the cooker going,and a parafin heater.
> Was i pleased to have gotten a house after all the waiting? you can bet your life i was.
> ...


You're not in the wrong for having bought your council house Jan. You did what any of us would have done at the time has we been in the same position - as you say, it made sound financial sense.

Selling council houses was good in that it gave people a start on the housing laddder. What was wrong was that Thatcher (and the following governments) did nothing to redress the housing shortage that selling the council houses created, hence the mess the housing situation is in today.

And instead of addressing it now and starting to build more houses, Cameron is taking yet more money off the most vulnerable members of society in an attempt to make them move out of their lifelong homes so that larger families can move in. 

btw - wasn't it a clever move on the government's part to rename council housing as social housing? Renting a council house was always quite a respectable thing to do - no-one would automatically assume that if you rented a council house you didn't work and were on benefits. In contrast, the term "social housing" immediately gives the impression that the tenant is someone workshy and claiming every benefit going - which is not the case at all. But - and perhaps more importantly for the government - it gets the sheep up in arms about people on benefits being "given" housing and diverts them from thinking about the real issues - ie why there are not enough houses and why - yet again - it is the poorer, more vilnerable members of society who are being penalised.


----------



## zany_toon (Jan 30, 2009)

I haven't read through all the posts in this thread so apologies if I'm raising a point already made.

I understand the reasons behind what the government is doing, I do, and for a lot of people I think it is completely justified. But this is going to have a huge issue on people who can't afford it. My mum and a family friend both work in a charity for the homeless. The charity takes in people the council refer to them, helps them try to find work, puts them in touch with lawyers etc. Some of these people have had a truly terrible life, and some of them are very young as well (not the first time they have had people in aged under 18 because the family can't be bothered with them anymore. They do (in some cases) eventually get offered a house by the council. Not one of them ever gets offered a one bedroom house that they could afford. For the ones who refuse to take the 2 or 3 bedroom knowing that they will never be able to afford it, the council say that they are making themselves homeless and put them out on the street again. If the council refuse to put people into a one bedroom house or a house with the right number of bedrooms, people that are struggling are never going to get out of the rut they are in because they are being forced to pay for rooms that they never wanted and can't afford. Those people aren't even being given a chance, and the new legislations are going to make it almost impossible for some of these people to get on their feet. And as far as I know, they haven't announced how the changes will affect families that are split between two households (i.e. children who spend split time between mum's house and dad's house.) And it looks like anyone who is kindhearted enough to foster is going to be affected as well:



> Foster children do not count as part of a foster carer's household, so no bedrooms are allocated for them under the size criteria.


Welfare reform | The Housing Executive

I understand the changes are needed to help bring in money that the governement and councils are losing through over avenues, but they might find that the genuine people who are trying to improve things for themselves are going to find it very hard to do so on the limited budget that they have coming in.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> In other words, moaning about paying more taxes


Yes - you know what - I am going to moan if I have to pay MORE taxes for people that don't want to get off their lazy @rse to get a job 

I don't mind the taxes I pay going to the poorest most vulnerable members of society - its the ones that play the system that pee me off - the ones that get a 6 bedroom house for the kids they dropped that they can't afford, and then moan that the house isnt good enough and they want a bigger and better one.

Thats what I mean about ingratitude. I dont want thanks, by the same token I dont want my hardearned money going to those people that expect the world on a plate, then moan that the plate isnt solid gold!

I work for a charity and am on 12k a year - all these benefit players (not the ones that actually need benefits, the system players) get far more cash or equivalent than I do a month, so why the hell would I want to pay even more taxes to keep them?

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I don't get all the laughing smilies etc just because you dont agree with something I have said.

After the night I have had, I will leave it there, I can answer the rest of your post tomorrow if you want me to.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> In other words, moaning about paying more taxes


So YOU expect ME to work a 40+ hour week and then GIVE EVEN MORE so that those who can't / don't / won't work can have a very nice, comfortable little lifestyle....??????

In the meantime, *'I'* - who works 40+ hrs a week - takes home even LESS money to look after myself, look after my home where *'I'* pay for all repairs etc (no nice little council man gonna come and replace my boiler when it breaks) and who can barely afford to enjoy the money *'I'* earn because I don't get any benefit concessions when I join a gym, or go to the cinema, or use public transport......

You tell me WHY those who DO the work should be worse off than those who don't!!!!!!!

I don't expect any kind of 'forelock tugging' but when folks are being given something for nothing and continue to moan it is NOT unreasonable to feel hacked off about it.

And as for your "I'm-alright-Jack" comment - :lol: :lol: :lol: The last thing I want to see is the UK return to the poverty of Victorian times and I don't think it unfair that I have to give a portion of my earnings to help those less able. But I DO think it bl**dy unfair when those less able think they have the right to a better standard of living than the poor feckers actually putting in the hard graft.

I have more than put my point across on this issue so from here on in, I'm out!!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm so amused at some of the replies on this thread.Some people assume so much.
> Just for the record i can i know only too well what its like not to have a penny to my name,or a roof over my head or one for my kids.So PLEASE don't tell me i have no right to moan.
> As i have already said,somewhere,i waited 11 years to get my council house.We we moved in,it was in a state like it or not.Also there was no way of heating the place apart from having the cooker going,and a parafin heater.
> Was i pleased to have gotten a house after all the waiting? you can bet your life i was.
> ...


I have no doubt that I would have done the same had I been in your position but I wouldn't then be critising Thatchers policies completely as you & your family benefited a great deal from this.

I also find it slightly ironic that people who have bought their council places then complain that there is not enough social housing :confused1: Tbh I think they played a part in this shortage (although admittedly small part). It's all very well having a socail conscience & principals but these just don't seem to be followed when people will benefit directly, no one considers those who will miss out then.

I really don't think many (or any!) of the comments are against people being in receipt of either benefits ort social housing when they need it (that was my arguement for not selling off council properties so those who truly needed a home had one), but alot of people are getting fed up of hearing people who are constantly moaning about their 'entitlements'.

People are getting fed up of having to make cut back, down size their homes, move to areas they are more able to afford, etc yet for some people they don't think this should apply to them. Some people still seem to think it is their 'right' to have 5 bed house in a specific area forever, get benefits to pay for this if they are unable to afford it & have it decorated for them & the garden landscaped (probably!)

Personally I think there is such a great need for social housing now especially as mortgages are harder to obtain & house prices are still so high. Because of this I feel that housing should be run on a tenancy basis & if you no longer qualify for a 4 bed house then you should move, it is not your 'right' to stay in accomodation that was designed for a large family.

It is all very well stating that council should just build more homes but where is the money coming form? How much will this cost? Will we all be expected to then pay more in council tax? How will the new infrastructures be paid for/mainatined if new develoments are built? I think it is alot more complex than simply just building new homes.

There was a fantastic programme on a while ago (I forget the name) with The Restoration Man presenting it (I forget his name aswell ). It was dreadful that there are many properties (council owned) that are sitting there empty as the councils do no have funding to renovate these. Instead they were wasting money paying private security firms to keep these form being vandalised :confused1: I think it was almost criminal that this does go on, more so than I realised

There was also a local councillor advising that a line of terraced house (2 up, 2 down) would not be renovated due to lack of interest in them. Apparently people didn't want to live in 'these type' of properties anymore - unbelievable! Although I do not believe people should be forced in to sh*t holes I do not think it is acceptable to turn down houses if you are in a posotion where you are requesting housing assistance.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I don't get all the laughing smilies etc just because you dont agree with something I have said.
> .


The laughing smileys were an indication of how much your melodramatic "twisting her words for my own means" made me laugh. What means? It's as if you think I have some nefarious and evil plan! I almost felt that there should have been some incidental music after them - ie "twisitng her words for your own means" - der-der-DER!

It's a forum ffs, not MI5 - and all I did was disagree with something your friend posted. Your turining it into an episode of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy really made me laugh - hence the laughing smileys!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

SandyR said:


> It's good to here that the council help people in need even if they are not on benefits. Gives me hope for the future if my landlord ever sells our house. We would really struggle to find somewhere being selfemployed bad credit and on benefit with pets and I often worry what we would do.


I really wouldn't bank on it 



Pointermum said:


> You must be SERIOUSLY lucky in your area, we was on the council list for over 3 years when there was 3 of us was in a one bed flat and was told basically we had no chance until our son was 7 years old , until then he could share with us or we could make the front room into a bedroom . The front room could fit one 2 seater sofa and a tv in it and that was it, the kitchen was tiny no room for table ect . You make it sound as if we all have the option on a council house and have turned it down , that is just soo untrue !!


May be different in other areas but around my area none are actually "council" houses anymore they have all been farmed out to various housing associations, and they are like gold dust to get one.

One of my nieces has three children, two boys and a girl (yes all the same father and yes he lives with them too ) they have a private rented two bed. They cannot get anywere within spitting distance of a council house, say all the children can share a bedroom until the eldest is 10.

Another niece was also in private rental with her bloke and their child aged 4. Unbeknown to her said bloke was up to no good and is now in her majesties accommodation :sad: Despite niece doing no wrong (police confirmed this to the landlord) she has been evicted because his convinction broke the tenancy agreement. The council have been most helpful asking "what exactly is it you expect from us", the only assistance they would offer is a possible place in a mother & child hostel 50 miles away from all her family. They actually said you are better off getting a private rental because we are not going to help you.

Now I am not wailing saying this is so unfair, just giving a few real life cases that show that so could young girls having babies just to get council places is actually rubbish


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I have no doubt that I would have done the same had I been in your position but I wouldn't then be critising Thatchers policies completely as you & your family benefited a great deal from this.
> 
> I also find it slightly ironic that people who have bought their council places then complain that there is not enough social housing :confused1: Tbh I think they played a part in this shortage (although admittedly small part). It's all very well having a socail conscience & principals but these just don't seem to be followed when people will benefit directly, no one considers those who will miss out then.
> 
> ...


*Firstly i have allways said that the only good thing Thatcher did was to allow people to buy their homes.IMO it should have been something Labour did.
Secondly, where have i complained about social housing?
I can sit and see all sides in a debate,i'm not blinkered.
Time and time again,the attitude of some people ( not just on here) is, i'm allright jack sod you.
I can and do sympathise with the under dogs of our society,because i know how they feel.*


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

I've lived in council housing housing all my life and these changes, although i know they will come as a shock to some, don't seem _too_ bad (or am i just very naive )

Pensioners are exempt from the changes, so older people wont lose money or their social networks.

Foster carers will lose housing benefit for the foster child's room but they will be able to claim money back again from another pot of money that is being put aside for them.

Anyone who's had major adaptations made to the property to allow for a disability will also be able to claim money back from this alternative source too.

I can see a problem with areas where the social housing available doesn't match the demand. If you're living in a property with too many bedrooms but the council is unable to move you to anything smaller because it isn't available you will still be penalised, which doesn't seem very fair.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ameliajane said:


> I've lived in council housing housing all my life and these changes, although i know they will come as a shock to some, don't seem _too_ bad (or am i just very naive )
> 
> Pensioners are exempt from the changes, so older people wont lose money or their social networks.
> 
> ...


*The problem imo is those that have the least to live on are,in a way being blackmailed.
If this was a fair thing to do,which it isn't,then nobody would be able to keep their houses.Example,if i had a 3 bedroomed house and could afford to pay the extra then i could keep my house.But if i was claiming benefit then i wouldn't be able to keep it.
People on benefits allready have barely enough to live on.What with fuel prices ect. constantly going up.
These are the people they should be hitting.*

"Starbucks was facing calls for a consumer boycott last night as MPs prepared to investigate claims it has paid just a few million pounds in corporation tax since bringing its coffee shops to the UK 14 years ago.
As a campaign against the company gathered pace on social media, politicians and union leaders were among those urging people to avoid its 735 UK stores."
Note! they have been here 14 years,and only now are they being looked into.


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

What about people who rent privately then lose their job and have to claim housing benefit. They might only get enough to cover a 1 bed house when they are living in a 3 bed. How do you think they cope. They either have to find the money or Leave their home. It's no different to what the council are doing to those in council houses.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> If this was a fair thing to do,which it isn't,then nobody would be able to keep their houses.Example,if i had a 3 bedroomed house and could afford to pay the extra then i could keep my house.But if i was claiming benefit then i wouldn't be able to keep it.


But doesn't this type of rule apply to everyone - we all have to live within what we can afford and yes, the more money a person has the more they can afford. That's just part of capitalism!

I suppose there is an issue with working people, who could afford to buy or rent privately continuing to occupy social housing, sometimes with far more rooms than they need. But if you were to make social housing only for those on benefits i can see council estates deteriorating very quickly. Maybe there ought to be something to prevent those who pay their own rent occupying social housing with excess rooms.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SandyR said:


> What about people who rent privately then lose their job and have to claim housing benefit. They might only get enough to cover a 1 bed house when they are living in a 3 bed. How do you think they cope. They either have to find the money or Leave their home. It's no different to what the council are doing to those in council houses.


*Years ago when the family were in a tied house,for those that don't know what i mean,it when you get a house that goes with the job.Yes i was in that possition.The council then would put you into temporary accommodation.No house,it could be, a place for just the mums and kids,a hostel for the family,or the likes.
As far as i know,and i could be wrong.The council has a duty these days to find people a place to stay.Note i didn't say a house.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *The problem imo is those that have the least to live on are,in a way being blackmailed.
> If this was a fair thing to do,which it isn't,then nobody would be able to keep their houses.Example,if i had a 3 bedroomed house and could afford to pay the extra then i could keep my house.But if i was claiming benefit then i wouldn't be able to keep it.
> People on benefits allready have barely enough to live on.What with fuel prices ect. constantly going up.
> These are the people they should be hitting.*
> ...


On this issue, I couldn't agree with you more!!!!! I think this is an absolute disgrace.

However, when people start pointing fingers and blaming the govt for looking after their 'corporate cronies' (as they surely will... ) they would do well to remember that Starbucks have been doing this for FOURTEEN years, we've only had the current coalition for two. So this was happening under Labours nose for TWELVE years......... Singing:


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

ameliajane said:


> I've lived in council housing housing all my life and these changes, although i know they will come as a shock to some, don't seem _too_ bad (or am i just very naive )
> 
> Pensioners are exempt from the changes, so older people wont lose money or their social networks.
> 
> ...


*
*

How does it work between council housing and paying housing benefit to rent in the private sector?

Where I live I don't think there are many family sized houses owned by the council, the town was built after there was any push to build 'council estates' there are some in the older parts of town but I'm not sure how many of these are now privatly owned.

Each new development has to have a percentage of 'affordable' housing but these seem to consist on mainly flats that are either shared ownership or HA, but not family homes. Families seem to be placed in private rented places, we have a row of such houses in our cul-de-sac, thankfully things have calmed down now but it caused an awful amount of trouble at the start, but the involvement of the police and our MP things are ok, but that's a saga for another day.

I just wondered if other councils did that e.g. If there weren't enough smaller properties to move people to they could go into private rented to free up the larger houses.

As an aside my friend lives in a HA flat amd it's lovely. They recently fitted new kitchens and bathrooms to all the flats and they aren't even that old.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

harley bear said:


> So iff you sell and downsize you take the money and use it for starting fresh and adding to your new property.
> Have you ever seen an empty council property and the state they are left in for rental?


yes I have. All you have to do is a deep clean and decorate, Ive seen alot worse private lets tbh.



newfiesmum said:


> It is not so easy to get a mortgage. I have often heard of *couples paying more in rent than they would be on a mortgage but they still can't get one*, and it is getting more and more difficult. Social housing was never about low incomes, it was about finding homes for people whether they could afford to buy or not. If people want to live in social housing and pay their way, I see nothing wrong with that.


this is us! Paying a large amount of rent means only a little is being saved for a deposit, it will be 8-10yrs before we can buy 

I dont care if you work or not but if you are in an underoccupied council house you cant complain paying a little more when the rent is still massively below what it would cost you in a private let.
You also canot expect tp live in a large house when your kids are gone either. The house ISNT YOURS to do what you want with.

Many families are now missing out on decent housing because so many people are saying "Fcuk you, ive lived her for xx years so why should i move?" what a world


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> So YOU expect ME to work a 40+ hour week and then GIVE EVEN MORE so that those who can't / don't / won't work can have a very nice, comfortable little lifestyle....??????


No, I expect you and me and everyone else who works and pays taxes to acknowledge that part of what we pay goes to help those who cannot help themselves - not those who don't or can't. I expect that help to be given freely, in the knowledge that such help will be given freely to me should I need it at some stage in the future.

Like you, I work bloody hard for my money - I work for the NHS; I work 13hr shifts and haven't had a pay rise since this government came to power. We have been fortunate - I've never been out of work since my first job and although my OH has been made redundant three times, he has managed to find work each time before any benefits would have kicked in. He's 60 next month and I'm 57. We've never had kids, so the only thing we've had from the system for all the money we've paid in is medical care - and even then we have private medical insurance to cover things like dental and optical treatment. We've paid into the system all our lives, and had very little in return, always paid our way, saved up for things we've needed, gone without things we couldn't afford, never been in debt.

Yet because of this government's financial policies, we now find that we have a £34,000 shortfall on our endowment mortgage that we have to somehow find the money for over the next seven years. We are lucky in that will be able to manage this before we retire, but should either one of us be made redundant, or become ill so that we cannot work, we will be up the proverbial creek without a means of prepulsion. We could lose our home and need a council house. It really, really, *really* pisses me off that if this should happen some people - people such as you - will then automatically judge us to be benefit scroungers.

There needs to be some recognition of the fact that most people on benefits are genuinely needy cases and are not all the scroungers that this government, the tabloids, and the sheep who blindly believe them without questioning, make them out to be.

I recognise that there *are *scroungers and it pisses me off just as much as it does you that they can work the system - but I also recognise that given the number of people on benefits, the scroungers are in the minority. Rather than pretending that all benefit recipients are workshy scroungers so that I can justify cutting benefits to everyone (a typical Tory ploy) I would rather that the scroungers were brought to justice.

I would also like people to stop blindly accepting that cutting benefits to the needy is NOT necessary and NOT the only way to get this country back on its feet. It is merely the way that best suits the people in power - the millionaires who have no clue about how the ordinary people in this country struggle becaue of their policies and who don't give a flying f--k about any of them anyway.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Starlite said:


> yes I have. All you have to do is a deep clean and decorate, Ive seen alot worse private lets tbh.
> 
> this is us! Paying a large amount of rent means only a little is being saved for a deposit, it will be 8-10yrs before we can buy
> 
> ...


I don't believe that anyone should be forced to move, especially if there is nothing in the same area to offer them, but paying a little more for an under occupied house is not the end of the world. What bothers me is what the government intends to do with this extra money. Will it go toward building more houses for social housing, or will it end up on unnecessary fripperies and more money given to the undeserving?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> No, I expect you and me and everyone else who works and pays taxes to acknowledge that part of what we pay goes to help those who cannot help themselves - not those who don't or can't. I expect that help to be given freely, in the knowledge that such help will be given freely to me should I need it at some stage in the future.
> 
> Like you, I work bloody hard for my money - I work for the NHS; I work 13hr shifts and haven't had a pay rise since this government came to power. We have been fortunate - I've never been out of work since my first job and although my OH has been made redundant three times, he has managed to find work each time before any benefits would have kicked in. He's 60 next month and I'm 57. We've never had kids, so the only thing we've had from the system for all the money we've paid in is medical care - and even then we have private medical insurance to cover things like dental and optical treatment. We've paid into the system all our lives, and had very little in return, always paid our way, saved up for things we've needed, gone without things we couldn't afford, never been in debt.
> 
> ...


*Totaly agree with all that you have said Val.
I can see why we now live in a broken society.Whats the old saying," there but for the grace of god go i."
*


----------



## SandyR (Oct 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Years ago when the family were in a tied house,for those that don't know what i mean,it when you get a house that goes with the job.Yes i was in that possition.The council then would put you into temporary accommodation.No house,it could be, a place for just the mums and kids,a hostel for the family,or the likes.
> As far as i know,and i could be wrong.The council has a duty these days to find people a place to stay.Note i didn't say a house.*


Yeah exactly a place to stay not a home. It's no different asking people living in council houses too big for them to be moved somewhere else or pay the difference.

Why should someone in a council house be protected for life when I've brought up my family in my rented home and then expected to move out when I lose my job because I have more bedrooms then needed.

We lost our job and had to make up the difference of the rent as the benefit did not cover it. I'm not complaining though its life. We are working now but much less money then before so we still have to go with out to keep the house we love.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> No, I expect you and me and everyone else who works and pays taxes to acknowledge that part of what we pay goes to help those who cannot help themselves - not those who don't or can't. I expect that help to be given freely, in the knowledge that such help will be given freely to me should I need it at some stage in the future.
> 
> Like you, I work bloody hard for my money - I work for the NHS; I work 13hr shifts and haven't had a pay rise since this government came to power. We have been fortunate - I've never been out of work since my first job and although my OH has been made redundant three times, he has managed to find work each time before any benefits would have kicked in. He's 60 next month and I'm 57. We've never had kids, so the only thing we've had from the system for all the money we've paid in is medical care - and even then we have private medical insurance to cover things like dental and optical treatment. We've paid into the system all our lives, and had very little in return, always paid our way, saved up for things we've needed, gone without things we couldn't afford, never been in debt.
> 
> ...


As I said earlier, I really don't think anyone begrudeges those in need to be helped, I really don't.

Regardless of the people who make careers out of benefits though (another thread I suppose!) I still think people are missing the point of social housing. It is there to provide a need, it is there to help families, etc. How can really be used correctly if the property is not being used to it's full potential. How can it be right that familes are stuck in cramped conditions whilst couples continue to reside in large properites simply because it is their 'right'? How can this be fair?

As was pointed out earlier that not everyone in social housing is on benefits so why is there an assumption that these are the people in 'need' & are 'poor'? I know several people who are on good wages in council properties & would never be looked upon as hard up at all.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Polimba said:


> If there weren't enough smaller properties to move people to they could go into private rented to free up the larger houses


Yes, it would mean those whom the council can't rehouse into smaller properties would have to pay the extra cost, or move into the private sector.

I suppose the concern there is that the private sector is far less secure and many of those in council accomodation are quite vulnerable. I think there is a suggestion that anyone leaving the social housing sector for the private sector would be given priority in the future if they wanted to return to social housing. Not sure how this would work in reality though.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Funny how the older generation go on about putting into the pot all their life to be treated soo badly at the end . Us younger "workers" will pay far more into the pot and you think you have it bad now..... What do you think we will get once we get to retirement at 70plus years old  sweet fa


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

What I would like to know is how these benefit cheaters go about being so successful, since I cannot even get the disability benefit for my son that he is entitled to. It seems that being born with brain damage and needing 24 hour contact with someone is not enough, but being a bloody p*ss artist is!

I get extremely angry and I have been fighting now for months and I still have to take him to a tribunal just to get the small amount he is entitled to and that his dad paid copious amounts of tax to provide.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Totaly agree with all that you have said Val.
> I can see why we now live in a broken society.Whats the old saying," there but for the grace of god go i."
> *


Exactly, Jan. If you'd have asked us in our 20s, 30s or 40s about our future we would have said no worries - we were fit, healthy, working, living within our means, saving, paying into a pension fund so that we would be ok on retirement - and then wham, bang, through no fault of our own we are at risk of losing everything if we lose our jobs. We will still be ok on retirement - providing we can keep our jobs until we hit retirement age - but the savings we were accruing to ease our retirement will be somewhat depleted.

If it can happen to us it can happen to anyone - ill health doesn't care which party you vote for! I truly hope that none of the people on here who view all benefit recipients as scroungers are ever in the position to need help themselves - but if ever they did then they might just see the other side of the story.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

ameliajane said:


> Yes, it would mean those whom the council can't rehouse into smaller properties would have to pay the extra cost, or move into the private sector.
> 
> I suppose the concern there is that the private sector is far less secure and many of those in council accomodation are quite vulnerable. I think there is a suggestion that anyone leaving the social housing sector for the private sector would be given priority in the future if they wanted to return to social housing. Not sure how this would work in reality though.


I suppose it's swings and roundabouts though. Generally, speaking of where I live, you would be housed in a much better area.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Exactly, Jan. If you'd have asked us in our 20s, 30s or 40s about our future we would have said no worries - we were fit, healthy, working, living within our means, saving, paying into a pension fund so that we would be ok on retirement - and then wham, bang, through no fault of our own we are at risk of losing everything if we lose our jobs. We will still be ok on retirement - providing we can keep our jobs until we hit retirement age - but the savings we were accruing to ease our retirement will be somewhat depleted.
> 
> If it can happen to us it can happen to anyone - ill health doesn't care which party you vote for! *I truly hope that none of the people on here who view all benefit recipients as scroungers *are ever in the position to need help themselves - but if ever they did then they might just see the other side of the story.


I don't think anyone does view *everyone *in that way at all, that wasn't the debate :confused1:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Pointermum said:


> Funny how the older generation go on about putting into the pot all their life to be treated soo badly at the end . Us younger "workers" will pay far more into the pot and you think you have it bad now..... What do you think we will get once we get to retirement at 70plus years old  sweet fa


If that was aimed at me (and I guess it is because I'm the only poster so far who has spoken about the subject) then I take great exception to it.

What part of my post has said that I feel I am being treated badly? I have merely illustrated the way things are. They are the facts. It was an illustration to Moggy-Baby that not all hard workers begrudge paying to people less well-off than themselves, even when that money could be put to good use in their own circumstances. It was an illustration that people can end up needing benefits through no fault of their own and hence not all benefit recipients are workshy scorungers.

And I have no idea what you will get when you get to retirement age - but trying to make this into an "older generation versus younger generation" argument will help no-one.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> So YOU expect ME to work a 40+ hour week and then GIVE EVEN MORE so that those who can't / don't / won't work can have a very nice, comfortable little lifestyle....??????


typical misconception, your tax payments could just as easily be funding a NHS hospital, a prison, pension payments or an MP's 2nd home, why do you think YOUR £100/wk is a chavs £100 a week giro? did you hand it to them?

D


> The UK has sent more than £1 billion of UK taxpayers money to India in the last five years and is planning to spend a further £600 million on Indian aid by 2015.


India tells Britain: We don't want your aid - Telegraph


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The UK has sent more than £1 billion of UK taxpayers money to India in the last five years and is planning to spend a further £600 million on Indian aid by 2015.


I do think 'aid' needs to be looked at but it I think people should be aware that this money is not just given to a country to do with as they please. A lot of aid is actually a 'loan' and other aid has a lot of conditions attached - it may be for specific projects which have conditions attached - notably that the work is carried out by British companies which provides work (and profits) for the UK.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Years ago when the family were in a tied house,for those that don't know what i mean,it when you get a house that goes with the job.Yes i was in that possition.The council then would put you into temporary accommodation.No house,it could be, a place for just the mums and kids,a hostel for the family,or the likes.
> As far as i know,and i could be wrong.The council has a duty these days to find people a place to stay.Note i didn't say a house.*


When my parents first married they were in a tied cottage, when Dad had to leave that job (he managed a corn mill there was nothing to extract all the dust and it was affecting his lungs) they went to live in a caravan on my uncles farm. By then they had my brother and me, there is only 14 months between us so in a caravan with two tots in nappies :eek6: No wonder mum would never holiday in a caravan


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't believe that anyone should be forced to move, especially if there is nothing in the same area to offer them, but paying a little more for an under occupied house is not the end of the world. What bothers me is what the government intends to do with this extra money. Will it go toward building more houses for social housing, or will it end up on unnecessary fripperies and more money given to the undeserving?


*If people are only left with £20 a week to "live" on,taking another £14/16 per week will leave them with just £4. And believe when i say this is 100% the true facts.
I'm all for outing the scroungers but it truely breaks my heart to see genuine people suffer.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> typical misconception, your tax payments could just as easily be funding a NHS hospital, a prison, pension payments or an MP's 2nd home, why do you think YOUR £100/wk is a chavs £100 a week giro? did you hand it to them?


Do you know, this comment is SOOOOO ludicrous, it is not even worth the effort of contructing a reply to!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> If that was aimed at me (and I guess it is because I'm the only poster so far who has spoken about the subject) then I take great exception to it.
> 
> What part of my post has said that I feel I am being treated badly? I have merely illustrated the way things are. They are the facts. It was an illustration to Moggy-Baby that not all hard workers begrudge paying to people less well-off than themselves, even when that money could be put to good use in their own circumstances. It was an illustration that people can end up needing benefits through no fault of their own and hence not all benefit recipients are workshy scorungers.
> 
> And I have no idea what you will get when you get to retirement age - but trying to make this into an "older generation versus younger generation" argument will help no-one.


It wasn't aimed at anything you have said , just more on what i hear on tv and from people around me 

I don't think anyone begrudges people who *genuinely * can't work , more the likes of my older sister who has been on benefit since the age of 17 and had all 5 children on it, who now has a 5 bed house "given" to her (which me and my hubs couldn't afford to buy, yet we will soon lose child benefit ) , she affords to pay £250 field rent for her horses on her benefit  Mean while my kids only see their dad on the weekends as his at work before they are awake and in bed when before he gets home. It's the like of her , people begrudge ! And of all the people i know on benefit, i would say only one hasn't chose it as a lifestyle/easy option


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *If people are only left with £20 a week to "live" on,taking another £14/16 per week will leave them with just £4. And believe when i say this is 100% the true facts.
> I'm all for outing the scroungers but it truely breaks my heart to see genuine people suffer.*


The trouble is everything is SOO complicated, people with a income that low would probably be intitled to lots of other help but they just don't know about it  For example the water companies have a lower tariff , as does gas and electric if your on benefit. Pensioners tax credit and so on but it does involve people asking


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> As I said earlier, I really don't think anyone begrudeges those in need to be helped, I really don't.
> 
> Regardless of the people who make careers out of benefits though (another thread I suppose!)


Oh, believe me, I understand that there are such people about and that it needs addressing!



Cleo38 said:


> I still think people are missing the point of social housing. It is there to provide a need, it is there to help families, etc. How can really be used correctly if the property is not being used to it's full potential. How can it be right that familes are stuck in cramped conditions whilst couples continue to reside in large properites simply because it is their 'right'? How can this be fair?


Council housing used to provide for two sorts of needs:

1. It was a way for people who could not afford to save up the deposit required for a mortgage to be able to rent property - ie ordinary working people. The council was merely a landlord just like any other. If people paid their rent, they were not evicted - ie they could rent a home for life.
2. It was a way for councils to be able to home people who were on benefits

Since the tory party renamed it as "social" housing, the first provision has gone out of the window and everyone now views it as you have descibed it above - ie as the second provision.

But what people are not taking into consideration is that a hell of a lot of people are living in council houses under the first provision and it is these people, people who have worked and paid the rent all their lives, people who were originally told that this was their hiome for life, who are now complaining - and rightly so, imo. These people have invested a lot of their life in these houses, they are their homes.

I can understand that things move on, that people now want to move the parameters and regard council houses as short-term let social housing, but there should be some starting point - ie start the new policy from now, rather than trying to evict people who have lived somewhere all their lives, or trying to force them into it by taxing them on their empty bedrooms.

As for fair, I can see both sides of the story. You point out that it's not fair that familes are stuck in cramped conditions whilst couples continue to reside in large properites. That is true; but neither is it fair that a family who have four kids can now say, "I have four kids and can't afford to buy a house so I want to kick you out of your home."

The only fair thing to do would be to build more social houses so that all needs can be met - and it could be funded if the 25 billion from corporate tax fraud was recouped.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver, I am not going to quote all your post again because the irony is that we actually are almost in agreement!  

Like you, I work very hard. Like you, I don't have kids. Never wanted them but couldn't have afforded them if I had. I've worked for my money since I was 13. I could count the amount of foreign holidays I've had in my life on practically one hand. Everything I've now got has been acheived by hard work and going without.

I FULLY appreciate that something/ anything could happen which would see me at the mercy of the benefits system. However, I would be / am grateful that it is there to help me if the sh!t should ever hit the fan. I KNOW that not everyone is a scrounger despite what I see on my own street every day.

HOWEVER....... - and this is the point I've been trying to get across from the start - the UK financies are in a pretty sh!t state right now. They have been for several years - BEFORE the current govt came along - and they need to be sorted out. That includes getting the big corporations to pay their way and finding ways of getting the scroungers (NOT the genuine) off the benefits they do not deserve to get in an attempt to try and and ease the flow going out of the pot.

People who are working, and receive *no* other assistance, are having to make cuts and sacrifices to see them through on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis. Many ARE having to hold off on their heating etc and are already buying the cheapest food they can just to get by. Why then, should THEY be the only people to feel the pinch? Why should the people receiving assistance not also have to make sacrifices and have to make cut backs?

Can you see what I am saying here? I DO NOT begrudge helping those in need but the workers should NOT be the only people having to make sacrifices. Someone receiving assistance should NOT have a nicer lifestyle than someone who doesn't because they work.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Spellweaver do you think my sister deserves to keep her 5 bed house after the kids have gone ? As that's what the whole thread was really about.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Pointermum said:


> The trouble is everything is SOO complicated, people with a income that low would probably be intitled to lots of other help but they just don't know about it  For example the water companies have a lower tariff , as does gas and electric if your on benefit. Pensioners tax credit and so on but it does involve people asking


*Nope, unfortunately they can't get any help.
As for the gas,i know of people in this situation that are going without heating to help them get by..
And this is "Great Britain" 2012.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Pointermum said:


> It wasn't aimed at anything you have said , just more on what i hear on tv and from people around me
> 
> I don't think anyone begrudges people who *genuinely * can't work , more the likes of my older sister who has been on benefit since the age of 17 and had all 5 children on it, who now has a 5 bed house "given" to her (which me and my hubs couldn't afford to buy, yet we will soon lose child benefit ) , she affords to pay £250 field rent for her horses on her benefit  Mean while my kids only see their dad on the weekends as his at work before they are awake and in bed when before he gets home. It's the like of her , people begrudge ! And of all the people i know on benefit, i would say only one hasn't chose it as a lifestyle/easy option





Pointermum said:


> Spellweaver do you think my sister deserves to keep her 5 bed house after the kids have gone ? As that's what the whole thread was really about.


*Now without knowing your sister or her circumstances i can't see how anyone can answer your question.
If she is one of these that have just had 1 child after another without a care about who will foot the bill to keep them,then i say she is one of the scroungers.Sorry thats not meant as a personal attack, but you did ask.*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Pointermum said:


> Spellweaver do you think my sister deserves to keep her 5 bed house after the kids have gone ? As that's what the whole thread was really about.


Personally I don't think "deserve" comes into it its rented she doesn't own it - should she have a right too? Then no I don't. I don't think my own sister should have a right to stay in her own 5 bedroom house either, but because its specially adapted for my disabled niece they are unlikely to offer her anything smaller so she will suffer the penalty on benefits with no options.

When I was divorced I could not stay in my home, I could not afford either the mortgage or the rates. I had to move back with baby to my parents for 12 months whilst dad renovated a two up to down. Plan didn't go too smoothly though as soon as I moved in interest rates went up to 13% and rates changed to poll tax so I was skint for a long time :sad: The only way I managed was because Mum looked after my son whilst I went to work


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> Spellweaver, I am not going to quote all your post again because the irony is that we actually are almost in agreement!
> 
> Like you, I work very hard. Like you, I don't have kids. Never wanted them but couldn't have afforded them if I had. I've worked for my money since I was 13. I could count the amount of foreign holidays I've had in my life on practically one hand. Everything I've now got has been acheived by hard work and going without.
> 
> ...


Of course I can see what you are saying here - and that is why my _original _reply to you addressed only the point I have outlined above in red. I wanted to point out to you that cutting benefits wasn't the ONLY way to get the country back on its feet - in fact was not even a necessary part. I know how our politics differ and I was trying to avoid an argument  But then you objected to my not addressing the rest of your argument and off we went! :lol:

As for the bit in blue, of course ordinary working people should not be the only ones feeling the pinch. The government should be recouping corporate tax fraud and making richer people pay higher taxes - but hey, that's arguing about politics again and we're never going to agree about that; so let's just agree that we want more or less the same things, but differ about what is the best and fairest method to achieve them


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Pointermum said:


> Spellweaver do you think my sister deserves to keep her 5 bed house after the kids have gone ? As that's what the whole thread was really about.


Can't really say without knowing the circumstances. Also, I'd rather talk about "rights" rather than what someone "deserves". Speaking about what someone deserves is making a subjective assessment and I'd rather look at something objectively.

If her original rental agreement was that it was a tenancy for life, and if she pays the rent and does nothing to get herself evicted, then I would say she has every _right_ to keep living in her house if the kids have gone.

If it was a short term or fixed term rental agreement, or if she breaks any rule that means she should be evicted, then she has no _right_ to keep living there.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Now without knowing your sister or her circumstances i can't see how anyone can answer your question.
> If she is one of these that have just had 1 child after another without a care about who will foot the bill to keep them,then i say she is one of the scroungers.Sorry thats not meant as a personal attack, but you did ask.*


But thats benefits with strings - live a life by certain standards you can be deemed deserving or not. Surely the problem is the way benefits have been doled out, if you bung loads of money at folk for having children then many will do just that.

When I divorced the current benefit culture was not around so I worked my whotsits off to provide a home for my child, no other option. If I new I could have stayed at home and received more money than I was earning at that time in benefits would I have still gone to work for less. Hand on heart I am not sure I would.

My son is only 25 but how the system has changed in that time. I have 3 nieces with six children between them all on some sort of benefits and only one of the fathers works at all. All of them are young & healthy but the system allows them to be idle.

My own son & his girlfriend both work they wouldn't have been able to afford to even rent until recently after working for six years. The only reason they are able to buy is because I am having to give them the deposit. It will be a very long time before they can afford to have children.

My neices are around the same age as my son and have had their own houses and children for quite some time now despite never having worked at all. I love my neices & their children dearly but I can still see that it is wrong.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> But thats benefits with strings - live a life by certain standards you can be deemed deserving or not. Surely the problem is the way benefits have been doled out, if you bung loads of money at folk for having children then many will do just that.
> 
> When I divorced the current benefit culture was not around so I worked my whotsits off to provide a home for my child, no other option. If I new I could have stayed at home and received more money than I was earning at that time in benefits would I have still gone to work for less. Hand on heart I am not sure I would.
> 
> ...


*I agree with you 100%..As i've said before,i honestly don't begrudge anyone that needs help.But why are people allowed to carry on bringing more kids into this world when others have to foot the bill.
Another thing that pees me off big time off is too many fathers don't pay for their offspring.*


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Now without knowing your sister or her circumstances i can't see how anyone can answer your question.
> If she is one of these that have just had 1 child after another without a care about who will foot the bill to keep them,then i say she is one of the scroungers.Sorry thats not meant as a personal attack, but you did ask.*


Trust me i'm the first one to say she is a scrounger, because i see it first hand that's why i get soo peed off at these benefit threads  But it has been the Labour government that has been happy to fund these peoples life styles for soo long , they literally paid them to have kids ! The government has to do something as we are into the 2nd and 3rd generation of people willing to live this way.

Originally i agree with the reason why people got council houses but around here you will only get one if you have a child in tow so they have a duty to house you. If a single male/female applied i think the wait was like 15 years , that was what i was told 12 years ago when we applied , I can only imagine that has gone up and unless a family (working or otherwise) was homeless and willing to go into a hostel that would only be when they would get a house with-in a few months.


----------



## garmon3869 (Oct 19, 2012)

Bedroom is a most important part of a house... I think a well cleaner and decorate room is very important for best refreshment and rest at night. A well decorated room is important to increase home value...


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

garmon3869 said:


> Bedroom is a most important part of a house... I think a well cleaner and decorate room is very important for best refreshment and rest at night. A well decorated room is important to increase home value...


Thank you for sharing :


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

This thread has made very interesting reading. The problem is, I can see most people's point of view, such as an elderly lady being forced to move away from the area she's known all her life. Obviously, in an ideal world, the new rule about number of bedrooms would start from 'now', as it were, but on the other hand, if the rules are that the council have to provide housing for people who meet certain criteria, how are they meant to do that if there are no houses available, or they aren't big enough?

I guess what would be best is if a) the council had the money to build new houses, and implement the bedroom rule for new tenants, or b) have the manpower and credit staff with common sense to decide who the most deserving are for council houses, rather than having blanket rules. Neither of these are going to happen, because they don't have the money to do it, and the staff just won't be given the power to make those decisions themselves, for various reasons. For this reason I don't see how else they could possibly work it, other than deciding what the necessary number of bedrooms for you is, and then putting you in a house like that. They could put the taxes up, but how many people would be willing to pay for their outrage in that way?

I have always thought that the only things you are truly entitled to (not in the government sense of ticking the boxes for extra child benefit, or whatever) are the things you've worked for and earned the money for yourself. My partner and I worked out the amount of benefits we would be given if we had a child, and it was ridiculous. We did this not because we were considering it, but because we know a couple of people with four children who haven't worked for a long, long time (for no reason) and always seem to have the money for going out for meals and buying expensive electronics. I just don't see why you'd continue to have children if you can't afford them, or what exactly you need to spend all that extra benefit on. If you aren't working (we are students) it's not like you need to pay for childcare.

I also thought the shake up around disability benefits was great. When I was 16, I went out with a bloke who got disability benefit, and his mum got carer's allowance, despite the fact he managed to work cash in hand perfectly well and also play in a pool, darts and skittles team every week. He was reported, and nothing was done, apart from the place who employed him were told, 'Don't do that again.' I am aware, though, of all the problems with some people not being assessed correctly.

The point really is, I suppose, that everyone knows the government aren't perfect, whether it be in assessing people for council houses or various benefits. Unless you really have a need for support, from serious disability for example, you should really stop feeling so 'entitled' to what the government are willing to pay you and be grateful for what you get. If you get support because you've lost your job, and it won't allow you to continue to pay for your lifestyle, tough. Don't have any more children or get any more pets, don't go out, don't go on holiday, don't buy expensive food, move to a smaller house or a cheaper area, don't drink or smoke, don't have Sky, Virgin, or anything like it. As long as you have food, gas, electric, clean water and a roof over your head, of whatever size, what have you got to complain about? Those are the only necessities, apart from clothing, which can be bought very cheaply from Asda, Primark, or charity shops.

I have no doubt this general feeling will be unpopular with some people, but the apologetic hand-wringing and trying not to offend people is part of the problem.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I must say I get sick of the word benefits and poor people often the poorest are those that work all hours and pay mortgages, pay there bills, maintain there houses,these are the people that get hammered


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suewhite said:


> I must say I get sick of the word benefits and poor people often the poorest are those that work all hours and pay mortgages, pay there bills, maintain there houses,these are the people that get hammered


*Sorry Sue, but i bet not one of them would swap places with someone who can't heat their home and has just £20 a week to live on.*


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Sorry Sue, but i bet not one of them would swap places with someone who can't heat their home and has just £20 a week to live on.*


Do you know what Jan there have been times when we have had to live on £60 a month after paying our bills,petrol for car to get to work.I know that I will have to work till I drop,I can honestly say that a week before we get paid we have diddly squat and its a horrible feeling.xxx


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suewhite said:


> Do you know what Jan there have been times when we have had to live on £60 a month after paying our bills,petrol for car to get to work.I know that I will have to work till I drop,I can honestly say that a week before we get paid we have diddly squat and its a horrible feeling.xxx


*I've been in the same situation Sue and i know how soul destroying it can be.
I think that's why i'm like i am now with money. A right scrooge.*


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't believe that anyone should be forced to move, especially if there is nothing in the same area to offer them, but paying a little more for an under occupied house is not the end of the world. What bothers me is what the government intends to do with this extra money. Will it go toward building more houses for social housing, or will it end up on unnecessary fripperies and more money given to the undeserving?


No one is being forced to move hun they are being asked and given a premium for doing so.

People cannot complain they want to stay in their underoccuppied house but are enraged they have to pay for spare bedrooms to do so, you cant have it all and even with the small markup the rent is STILL massively below an average private let!

The funds should go to buils more soccial housing which in turn would help the economy and fund more housing by getting rent for the houses, its not rocket science.
Land has been lying in Parkhead nearly 20years now that the council tore all 300 houses (flats) done and have never bothered to rebuild on it, why??


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

How come in eighteen months... fifty million quid is being slung about to commemorate the START of World War one.An avoidable war started by politicians that slaughtered millions of ordinary people on both sides.

The people involved are all now dead.The sacrifice should of course be recognised...but a hundred years on in the middle of a recession and hardship haven't we better things to spend this money on?

What next?...Waterloo?

David Cameron reveals first world war centenary plans | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

poohdog said:


> How come in eighteen months... fifty million quid is being slung about to commemorate the START of World War one.An avoidable war started by politicians that slaughtered millions of ordinary people on both sides.
> 
> The people involved are all now dead.The sacrifice should of course be recognised...but a hundred years on in the middle of a recession and hardship haven't we better things to spend this money on?
> 
> ...


Would you object if your grandad lay in a Somme war grave?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

The rot doesnt start with Welfare/Council tenants, it starts at the TOP

BBC News - MPs expenses: 22 MPs get &#039;dual income&#039; from London homes


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> Would you object if your grandad lay in a Somme war grave?


How do you know he doesn't? I am quite sure that the men who lost their lives fighting a war they did not even fully understand, would not have wanted that sort of money wasted on commemorating it.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Starlite said:


> No one is being forced to move hun they are being asked and given a premium for doing so.
> 
> People cannot complain they want to stay in their underoccuppied house but are enraged they have to pay for spare bedrooms to do so, you cant have it all and even with the small markup the rent is STILL massively below an average private let!
> 
> ...


*When you have no fair choice then you ARE being forced.Dogooders can dress it up which ever way they choose.But the bottom line is,you can't get blood out of a stone.And thats exactly what this damn tory government want.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> Would you object if your grandad lay in a Somme war grave?


*And how many of our forefathers would turn in their graves,knowing the freedom they fought for has been pissed on left right and centre?*


----------



## nightkitten (Jun 15, 2012)

I know a few people will disagree with me, but I don't care.

We lived in an undesirable area with alcoholics, drug addicts and thieves. Both of us always worked, we were on low salaries but too high for benefits (haha). My OH had his works van broken into on several occasions and all his tools stolen so he could not work and earn any money. We were renting privately and more than once it was baked beans on toast for dinner.

Our washing machine broke down. I was not able to make a phone call and ask for a new one. I had to save up for months and go to the launderette in the meantime.

Our cars were broken into. I had to drive around with a broken window for 1 month before I could afford the repair.

I didn't like my neighbours being drug addicts or alcoholics. I could not ring the council to get them moved.

I would have liked a fence too. But I could not afford it and no council would pay for it.

Why do working people have to discuss if they can afford to have another child?

Why do working people have to take in lodgers because otherwise they can not afford the rent?

And why do people on benefits think they have rights to certain things? If I had stopped working and gone on to benefits I would have been far better off! But this is not right!

I worked my f*** a*** off going to work 40 hours a week and then studying in the evenings and weekends to be able to afford a better life. Luckily it has paid off.

Why should someone on benefits be allowed to stay in a house they have been in for years and someone who is working would have to move because they can't afford the rent anymore? 

I have the feeling that SOME people on benefits are a bit too far removed from the REAL life in the UK.

And what p*** me off the most:
My neighbour is 54 with a 17 year old daughter. They live in a 3 bedroom house which has been bought by her parents. She is on benefits so the council is paying the rent, which is obviously paying off the mortgage of the house and in the end she will inherit the house from her parents, that the taxpayer has paid for.

FAIR???


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> They live in a 3 bedroom house which has been bought by her parents. She is on benefits so the council is paying the rent, which is obviously paying off the mortgage of the house


I didn't think this was allowed?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

nightkitten said:


> I know a few people will disagree with me, but I don't care.
> 
> We lived in an undesirable area with alcoholics, drug addicts and thieves. Both of us always worked, we were on low salaries but too high for benefits (haha). My OH had his works van broken into on several occasions and all his tools stolen so he could not work and earn any money. We were renting privately and more than once it was baked beans on toast for dinner.
> 
> ...


*For a start i'll tell you what i told my kids,life isn't fair and that's a fact.
Do you think that others don't have problems with their washing macjine,ect breaking down? Hello and welcome to the real world.
Don't people remember what it was like to not have a luxuary such as a washing machine?:lol:
And you talk about people on benefits "that SOME people on benefits are a bit too far removed from the REAL life in the UK."*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> I didn't think this was allowed?


it wasnt

but it is now


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> How do you know he doesn't? I am quite sure that the men who lost their lives fighting a war they did not even fully understand, would not have wanted that sort of money wasted on commemorating it.


The amount is relevant only in todays money, what would you prefer to do, grass over the war graves, knock down memorials, cancel remembrance sunday?.... if we cannot mark the date WW1 started where does that leave the Help for Heroes campaign?....shall we knock that on the head too?


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

My next door neighbour lives in a house that her parents own and because it is her parents she is not allowed housing benefit and neither was my son when he lived with me.I'm sure if you are related to the landlord you cannot get housing benefit.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I didn't think this was allowed?


It isn't. I was told my son cannot get housing benefit because he lives with me. If they have changed that rule I shall be looking into it.



Colliebarmy said:


> The amount is relevant only in todays money, what would you prefer to do, grass over the war graves, knock down memorials, cancel remembrance sunday?.... if we cannot mark the date WW1 started where does that leave the Help for Heroes campaign?....shall we knock that on the head too?


The amount has little to do with it, really. Why would anyone want to commemorate the start of a war? What next? The beginning of slavery in this country when as far as I know we don't even celebrate the end of it. What a total waste of money. I don't see where not commemorating something adds up to knocking down memorials, though, nor cancelling remembrance day.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

They cant force you to move so please dont make out they can.



Bjt said:


> My next door neighbour lives in a house that her parents own and because it is her parents she is not allowed housing benefit and neither was my son when he lived with me.I'm sure if you are related to the landlord you cannot get housing benefit.


provided it is not a contrived tenancy yes you can. A contrived tenancy would be renting from an ex or your childrens dad however you can rent from your mum etc provided you show it is only you living there, you are subject to surprise inspections. Dont believe me? Have a look at the Homeless website


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> The laughing smileys were an indication of how much your melodramatic "twisting her words for my own means" made me laugh. What means? It's as if you think I have some nefarious and evil plan! I almost felt that there should have been some incidental music after them - ie "twisitng her words for your own means" - der-der-DER!
> 
> It's a forum ffs, not MI5 - and all I did was disagree with something your friend posted. Your turining it into an episode of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy really made me laugh - hence the laughing smileys!


Melodramatic? I would put a dictionary on my Christmas list if I were you.

If you don't want to recognise the difference between expecting gratitude and not expecting ingratitude, thats your problem, and I will leave you with your own ignorance.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> Your joking aren't you  what a mess the heating didnt even work, we didnt have heating over xmas and we had 2 kids.
> dead bodies in the back garden which is normal
> Black skirting boards..and black back door....have you ever tryed getting black paint off....you have no idea


Sorry, been skip reading, but just picked this out re decorating, quite often when you rent privately you are not allowed to decorate. The house we were in previously we wouldn't have been allowed to decorate, they sold the house from under us, so we looked around desperately for somewhere else within our budget, one house was £1k per month, massive, huge amounts of character, but muriels that had to stay and they were God awful. So, when you think about your awful black paint, just think you could be paying £1k per month and not allowed to change a thing.

And edited to add, our central heating didn't work either, cost us £3k in fuel in less than 12 mnths, not counting coal and other heating.


----------



## fire-siamesekitty (Jun 8, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, been skip reading, but just picked this out re decorating, quite often when you rent privately you are not allowed to decorate. The house we were in previously we wouldn't have been allowed to decorate, they sold the house from under us, so we looked around desperately for somewhere else within our budget, one house was £1k per month, massive, huge amounts of character, but muriels that had to stay and they were God awful. So, when you think about your awful black paint, just think you could be paying £1k per month and not allowed to change a thing.
> 
> And edited to add, our central heating didn't work either, cost us £3k in fuel in less than 12 mnths, not counting coal and other heating.


I was adding the pro's and con's of having a private house and a council one.:thumbsup:
Plus i wouldnt be renting a private house that wanted 1k per month in the first place


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> Melodramatic? I would put a dictionary on my Christmas list if I were you.
> 
> If you don't want to recognise the difference between expecting gratitude and not expecting ingratitude, thats your problem, and I will leave you with your own ignorance.


No need for a dictionary. I know what the word means - but you obviously do not. Here, I'll help you out:

_Definition of melodramatic
adjective 
relating to melodrama: 
characteristic of melodrama, especially in being *exaggerated or overemotional*:_
Definition of melodramatic

However much you try to wriggle out of it, your trying to pretend a perfectly normal post is "twisting her words for my own means" smacks of exaggeration and is over-emotional - hence it is melodrmatic.

Now, if you want to stop showing yourself up I suggest you stop with the personal attacks just because I disagreed with your friend. This is a forum and people are allowed to express opinions that your friend does not agree with, without you jumping in feet first and calling them ignorant. Btw - your friend and I have quite amicably come to a decision to agree to differ - so cut out the melodrama, cut out the personal attack, and either debate the subject in question or leave the thread.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Both of the greatest leaders the UK has ever had have been Tories

Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Bjt said:


> My next door neighbour lives in a house that her parents own and because it is her parents she is not allowed housing benefit and neither was my son when he lived with me.I'm sure if you are related to the landlord you cannot get housing benefit.


Its all online



> *I live in a property owned by a family member*
> 
> If you live in a property owned by a family member and pay them rent, you may be entitled to housing benefit. The council will want to take a detailed look at your agreement with your landlord. You wont get housing benefit if:
> you're not paying rent on a commercial basis
> ...


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> Both of the greatest leaders the UK has ever had have been Tories
> 
> Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher
> 
> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


Winston Churchill changed sides though. He started out as a liberal, didn't he? I can't think of any great labour leaders to be honest.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

By ex-partner I hope they mean ex-husband 

Im hoping to rent my ex-bf's house from him , he is still my friend but there is no longer any romantic attachment between us


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Winston Churchill changed sides though. He started out as a liberal, didn't he? I can't think of any great labour leaders to be honest.


Cos there havent been any

dont forget 115 years ago there wasnt a Labour party


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Very much doubt any government, which ever party, would dare to suggest means testing though.
> 
> I did read something in the paper the other day that starting with alcoholics/drug addicts/gamblers they are looking into some sort of smart card. Benefits credited direct to that and can only used to buy food & necessities. Sure it said that system is used in Australia, might be wrong on the country though


About b****y time! Why has this not been in place for decades?


----------



## pacey63 (Apr 28, 2010)

dorrit said:


> I thought this only applied to underoccupiers? People in mums area of London have started getting letters about it already.
> 
> My mum is looking forward to it...
> The council where she is have offered a premium to those who give up larger flats and houses and downsize..
> ...


sounds good..if you go where you are happy to go, this idea was rolled out in cardiff a while back, a girl i know was interested so enquired but in her case she had to go where they had a property for her which was in effect the other side of town, which was out of the question...so she didn't get any premium ..she managed in the end to exchange houses with someone in our area.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> A council (or HA) property is not always paid for by benefits, some tenants do actually have jobs, and trust me, they aint always cheap, we rent a 2 bedroom HA bungalow, the rent is £92/week, the rates are £1100 a year,


I have a council house and I pay £93 a week rent and £900 council tax the bedroom tax won't affect me though because I am not in receipt of housing benefit.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

For F^(&$ sake nothing changes on these forums

some of you have no clue what is actually happening in our society, no clue at all

The real reason that the economy is so messed up is all the people who are unemployed, scrounging off the system, living in free accommodation..

SERIOUSLY!! Wake Up!!

How many times do you need to read this bollo*K$ before you believe it? Once? Twice? Well it is in nearly every tabloid so it must be true right?

Have you heard the story about Iceland? The people have just thrown the freaking bankers and politicians into jail for the mishandling of the Country's finances which led to the collapse of the economy... 

What did we do to our thieving bankers and politicians? 

Oh yes we gave them massive bonuses...

This thread is typical of our society, we believe what we are told to believe, I was teaching the other week and one of the guys on my course said, 

"we don't have any jobs because of all the Polish people and immigrants being let into this country" to which I replied
"Give me a list of all the jobs that these people are doing that YOU applied for! You wouldn't do their job... My friend from Bulgaria is working in a Kebab shop in town, he works more than 60 hours a week for less than minimum wage, put your hand up now if you actually applied for that job!" 

No one did put their hand up, they were just repeating things that they have been taught by people that want to take the focus off the real problems...

Go and research Iceland, no papers are currently telling the story, dig deep x


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

To some extent I agree with the above post.

Whilst Polish, Czech and other nationals are increasingly travelling over here and applying for jobs, they are doing jobs that we wouldn't do to an extent. Where I work (casino) a high portion of the croupiers and valet staff are Czech, some don't speak that much English. I personally think to take a job, their spoken English should be decent, I would not go over and take a job in the Czech because I cannot speak a word of it! Also what may effect the economy is that some foreign nationals send money home to parents, in ergo, taking money out of the British economy and into their home country. Many come for a better life because of the lack of employment, low wages, high cost healthcare. 

Foreign nationals want to work, many British people don't, and its the people that don't want to work who report that the foreigners are taking all our jobs!

On the other hand, there are foreign nationals that come over, have kids, go on benefits. And the working ones get tarred with the brush, that either way they are stealing from the 'us Brits' whether it be in benefits or through a job 'that a British person' should have!! 

The people of Britain don't know how lucky they are to have free healthcare, free education, women's rights, food and water in the supermarkets, minimum wage, benefits. Try living in the poorest places of Africa, where you have to walk miles to get water, where medicinal care is next to non existent, education is either only for boys, the rich or both. 

One of my friends volunteered in schools in South Africa when she was there and it made her annoyed, annoyed at the fact that children in Britain see it as a chore and take it for granted. The children in SA were thankful of people taking their time to teach them, to show them things and help them. The appreciation of these children was massive towards the volunteers, and they didn't have their computers and their interactive white boards, just basics and to these children the basics are more than they could have asked for. Sorry a bit off track, but it has made me think how we may not feel we have a good life, but many other countries have got it worse than us!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Changes said:


> For F^(&$ sake nothing changes on these forums
> 
> some of you have no clue what is actually happening in our society, no clue at all
> 
> ...


I see no reason to join this thread at such a late stage with such a brash attitude, to be honest. It is a discussion of a news report; just because we are discussing it, does not mean that we all believe it.

I know that some immigrants are doing jobs for less than minimum wage, which is still more than they get in their own country. But I also think that something should be done about companies taking advantage of foreigners; they should not be allowed to pay less than minimum wage. I have a Polish friend who was a top journalist in Poland - here she is stacking shelves in Tesco and getting more money.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

OH works with two guys from Hungary, they told him that while the wages are low there the cost of living has gone through the roof so even though they are here working for less that a Dutch worker they are still earning a lot more than they would at home.

Policy regarding workers across the EU needs to be changed so that everyone pays the tax and insurence in the country they are *working* but that they also get the same pay..

At the moment a loophole exsists where a company can employ people via an agency in the home country of the workers they then do not fall under minimum pay or tax law of the country the work in...

Its a way of getting cheap labour that does nothing but line the pockets of big business.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

The housing association in my area are not happy at all about this as it could lead to a lot of people going into arrears.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Don't believe all YOU read.How on earth can the unemployed be blamed for everything?:nono:*


Seriously reread my post I was supporting you...


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Sussexplumber said:


> About b****y time! Why has this not been in place for decades?


Because it doesn't work. Food stamps in America are the same kind of deal, supposedly only for food etc. but a) shops can be dodgy, you think lots of corner shops wouldnt exchange them for 12 packs of special brew? Yeah right, b) you can sell them to other people etc. etc.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

I can, sort of, understand the theory behind this.
1. there are many people looking for a new home because their curent home is no longer big enough.
2. A similar couple are living with parents but have a child anyway.

Lets take each point in turn.
The problem is that their isn't enough multiy bedroomed properties to go around. This maybe true some areas but in my area, the opposite is true. Loads of multiy bedroomed properties and a few 1 bedroom properties.
2. Having a child before you have somewhere to live of your own is IMO irresponsible.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

I would like to add one thing to my last post. The 2 bedroomed rented house next to mine as finally been let after more than 8 months. It was let to a childles young couple. There are a number of multiy bedroomed properties in my area that have remained unoccupied for a similar length of time. One bedroomed properties are filled almost immediately. but they come up only rarely. I realise that it varies from area to area, but this only strengthens my view that it is wrong to generalise.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

CharleyRogan said:


> The people of Britain don't know how lucky they are to have free healthcare, free education, women's rights, food and water in the supermarkets, minimum wage, benefits.


Bit of a mix in that sentence.

I don't have 'free' healthcare, education, benefits etc. I PAID for them. So, if I'm made unemployed should I think myself lucky to get benefits? Not at all. If I have to go to the doctor do I feel lucky to get treated? No - because my taxes have part paid his salary and contribute towards the cost of surgery and medicine. I even pay for other people's children to be educated.

Get it quite clear - these aren't free things. And, if people have contributed towards them why should they not benefit from them?

We live in a world where it's politically advantageous to pretend that all benefit recipients are scroungers. But even the DWP reckons there's only a tiny percentage that actually fall into that category. The media encourages a mindset that talks about "we're all in this together" but is openly hostile to that portion of society who are in a disadvantaged position from disability or from losing their job, even when the job loss is caused by the failure of those who are unaffected by such things. I refer to those at the top of large companies and banks who have caused havoc by their policies.

Certainly if people have made their 'council house' their home they should consider downsizing but to make them do so heaps yet another layer of state bullying on top of other things they may be going through.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Changes said:


> Seriously reread my post I was supporting you...


*I have deleted my reply,i'm VERY sorry i misunderstood what you were saying.*


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

alan g a said:


> I would like to add one thing to my last post. The 2 bedroomed rented house next to mine as finally been let after more than 8 months. It was let to a childles young couple. There are a number of multiy bedroomed properties in my area that have remained unoccupied for a similar length of time. One bedroomed properties are filled almost immediately. but they come up only rarely. I realise that it varies from area to area, but this only strengthens my view that it is wrong to generalise.


single bedroomed properties are pretty thin on the ground here too so even if people wanted to downsize they wouldnt be able to and would be penalised anyway


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I have deleted my reply,i'm VERY sorry i misunderstood what you were saying.*


No worries Janice, easy done xx excellent thread by the way xx


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Changes said:


> No worries Janice, easy done xx excellent thread by the way xx


*Thank you. xx*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

CharleyRogan said:


> To some extent I agree with the above post.
> 
> Whilst Polish, Czech and other nationals are increasingly travelling over here and applying for jobs, they are doing jobs that we wouldn't do to an extent. Where I work (casino) a high portion of the croupiers and valet staff are Czech, some don't speak that much English. I personally think to take a job, their spoken English should be decent, I would not go over and take a job in the Czech because I cannot speak a word of it! Also what may effect the economy is that some foreign nationals send money home to parents, in ergo, taking money out of the British economy and into their home country. Many come for a better life because of the lack of employment, low wages, high cost healthcare.
> 
> ...


*I think you are forgetting a few facts here.Firstly people lost their jobs in the past fighting for decent working conditions and pay.
As for free health care ect. its not free,it has been paid for.And i might addd, if the tories have their way we will all soon have to pay for private treatment.
If people are taking jobs and getting less than min. wage they are not helping the British work force.
*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

fire-siamesekitty said:


> I was adding the pro's and con's of having a private house and a council one.:thumbsup:
> Plus i wouldnt be renting a private house that wanted 1k per month in the first place


The problem is, how do you know you're not getting value for money, we were paying £650, the landlord told us he was going to renovate the property into a luxury 3 bed house (it was a first floor flat barn conversion) and gave us an ultimatum. So we had to find a property very quickly which accepted dogs, and the nearest in location and priced charged £795 pcm, not £1k, although we did consider renting at that price instead of buying. It's also impossible to know whether the appliances etc work in a house unless you live there, we complained bitterly but nothing was ever done. Edited to add, the landlord evicted us effectively, spent quite a bit of money to do up the flat as it was to make it 3 bedrooms instead of 2, and then spent over 18 months marketing it before finally letting it for less than we were paying, which was quite satisfying.

My point is that the private rental market for those who want to choose is possibly even more cut throat, or at least as cut throat, as for those who rely on benefits to pay their rental.

There's an awful lot wrong with this country if people are willing to argue it's their perogative to stay in a 3 bedroom property paid for by the state when they really don't need that amount of space. Yes, it's unfortunate that people need to be moved from a much loved location, but it'd all be nice if we lived in detached houses in the country with no-one overlooking us, that's not a reality for all of our population, it's also not what everyone wants. As a tax payer I want to see my money used wisely and not used to subsidise people who refuse to move out of large houses just because they feel *safe* there, and I'm sorry if that upsets some members, it very likely will, but why on earth should my taxes pay towards someone staying in a property that is far too large for their day to day requirements?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

we will have to pay 10 quid a week

disgusting


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Well one of my jobs is being done in India the other in Hungary.

So I know that jobs are going to foreigners!!


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I see no reason to join this thread at such a late stage with such a brash attitude, to be honest. It is a discussion of a news report; just because we are discussing it, does not mean that we all believe it.
> 
> I know that some immigrants are doing jobs for less than minimum wage, which is still more than they get in their own country. But I also think that something should be done about companies taking advantage of foreigners; they should not be allowed to pay less than minimum wage. I have a Polish friend who was a top journalist in Poland - here she is stacking shelves in Tesco and getting more money.


I don't have a brash attitude 

I was defending the rights of the most vulnerable people in our society by pointing out that we are being brainwashed into thinking that they are the reason for the economic crisis, they are not the reason The bankers and the politicians are the reason for the collapse of our economy, but while everyone is believing what they read in the tabloids "The real reason that the economy is so messed up is all the people who are unemployed, scrounging off the system, living in free accommodation.." <-- Tabloid message, they are not actually noticing what is actually happening

Iceland have got it right their Bankers and politicians have been thrown in jail  because they are thieving VVankers


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Changes said:


> I don't have a brash attitude
> 
> I was defending the rights of the most vulnerable people in our society by pointing out that we are being brainwashed into thinking that they are the reason for the economic crisis, they are not the reason The bankers and the politicians are the reason for the collapse of our economy, but while everyone is believing what they read in the tabloids "The real reason that the economy is so messed up is all the people who are unemployed, scrounging off the system, living in free accommodation.." <-- Tabloid message, they are not actually noticing what is actually happening
> 
> Iceland have got it right their Bankers and politicians have been thrown in jail  because they are thieving VVankers


*Ah but! i wonder if their prisons are like holiday camps like ours.
Now there's a thought,most people of those less well of in this country would be better off in prison. Three meals a day,heating,a roof over their heads,ect. ect.*


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

Some years ago a woman in my area applied to the council for re-housing. On the death of her husband she decided that her three bedroomed house was too big for her. She wanted 1 bedroomed bungalow or similar and give a young couple just starting out the house that they need. The council refused her on the basis that they put her in a property that lower than the one she was currently in. Whilst I see their point, surely they should respect her worthy decision.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

alan g a said:


> Some years ago a woman in my area applied to the council for re-housing. On the death of her husband she decided that her three bedroomed house was too big for her. She wanted 1 bedroomed bungalow or similar and give a young couple just starting out the house that they need.* The council refused her on the basis that they put her in a property that lower than the one she was currently in. Whilst I see their point, surely they should respect her worthy decision*.


Can't understand that sorry...


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

When I was offered my first council flat it was a two bedroom. I was a single person so, thinking it must be a mistake and not wishing to deprive someone who needed the extra room, I called the council to remind them i only needed 1 bedroom. They told me they had far more 2 bedroom flats available than 1.

When that flat was demolished i was told that as i was already living in a two bedroom flat i was 'entitled' to the same again.

There did seem to be a mentality within some council departments that once you were living in a particular sized property you had a _right_ to expect that size so why downsize. I'm very pleased this is changing.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

poohdog said:


> Can't understand that sorry...


Neither can I. The point is she wanted to down size but the council wouldn't let her. She may a decision based on 2 things.
1. She handle a big house any more. She was getting on a bit and didn't need the space.
2. She that young justing could use the space.
Was she right or was she wrong? I don't know. but all to her for her choice. The council should least listened, but they didn't.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ah but! i wonder if their prisons are like holiday camps like ours.
> Now there's a thought,most people of those less well of in this country would be better off in prison. Three meals a day,heating,a roof over their heads,ect. ect.*


I get it, there is no pleasing you lol xx


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ah but! i wonder if their prisons are like holiday camps like ours.
> Now there's a thought,most people of those less well of in this country would be better off in prison. Three meals a day,heating,a roof over their heads,ect. ect.*


What makes you think prison is like a holiday camp? Have you ever been to prison?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> we will have to pay 10 quid a week
> 
> disgusting


Grace_Lily left me rep for this comment and asked why is is disgusting

well its disgusting because we need the room, why should we be charged for it?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ah but! i wonder if their prisons are like holiday camps like ours.
> Now there's a thought,most people of those less well of in this country would be better off in prison. Three meals a day,heating,a roof over their heads,ect. ect.*


so what do you suggest, replace the benefits system with a massive prison?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> so what do you suggest, replace the benefits system with a massive prison?


*No, but make the prisons a place no so inviting.*


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> Grace_Lily left me rep for this comment and asked why is is disgusting
> 
> well its disgusting because we need the room, why should we be charged for it?


Families in private rented accomodation or buying their home will have to pay more for a larger house/flat - why should it be any different for you?


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> Grace_Lily left me rep for this comment and asked why is is disgusting
> 
> well its disgusting because we need the room, why should we be charged for it?


I would love a spare bedroom for guests to sleep over or to out more junk in BUT it would be a luxury  So why do you NEED it


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Instead of people arguing about who'd got more than the next person,why don't you lay the blame at the robbing b*strds that are bringing this in?
For me, the bottom line is these are peoples homes we are talking about.
Build more social housing, which should have been done years ago.
Or another thought, let people take over any properties that have been standing empty for years.There's enough of them to end the housing crisis.*


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> Instead of people arguing about who'd got more than the next person,why don't you lay the blame at the robbing b*strds that are bringing this in?


Not arguing about who's got what, but just pointing out that no one can complain about having to pay more for a larger home - it is a fact of life and a reality in the private sector (both rental and home owner).



> Build more social housing, which should have been done years ago.
> Or another thought, let people take over any properties that have been standing empty for years.There's enough of them to end the housing crisis.


Agree with this. It is a scandal that so many properties are left empty just as it was a scandal that John Prescott bulldozed down so many empty properties just to keep the property market high.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Instead of people arguing about who'd got more than the next person,why don't you lay the blame at the robbing b*strds that are bringing this in? .*


Absolutely Jan. While ever people are wittering on about "Why should my taxes pay this, why should my taxes pay that", they are totally ignoring the MAIN point - ie that there is no need for any of this because the poorer members of our society do not need to be targetted to pay for the whole defecit. There are other ways to redress the balance. This is merely the way that best suits the Tories.

Tories are very good at getting their opposition infighting amongst themselves - has no-one ever heard of divide and conquer? While ever we ordinary people argue amongst ourselves and blame each other, instead of banding together and apportioning the blame to the correct areas, they will continue to line their pockets at our expense. The rich will grow richer and the poor will grow poorer.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Absolutely Jan. While ever people are wittering on about "Why should my taxes pay this, why should my taxes pay that", they are totally ignoring the MAIN point - ie that there is no need for any of this because the poorer members of our society do not need to be targetted to pay for the whole defecit. There are other ways to redress the balance. This is merely the way that best suits the Tories.
> 
> Tories are very good at getting their opposition infighting amongst themselves - has no-one ever heard of divide and conquer? While ever we ordinary people argue amongst ourselves and blame each other, instead of banding together and apportioning the blame to the correct areas, they will continue to line their pockets at our expense. The rich will grow richer and the poor will grow poorer.


*And i see this more and more every day.Those that have,are sitting back and having a good laugh at their under dogs.*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Labour got us in this mess, they left the cupboard well and truly bare


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> Labour got us in this mess, they left the cupboard well and truly bare


*This is so not true.But hey you carry on believing the rubbish we are fed.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Families in private rented accomodation or buying their home will have to pay more for a larger house/flat - why should it be any different for you?


That's true about buying, but not true about private renting. If you buy a house you don't get any housing benefit at all - obviously. But if you rent privately, and you qualify for housing benefit, you get more benefit depending upon the size of the property:

_Private rent
How much you get is usually based on the Local Housing Allowance Limit in your area, your income and circumstances.

Property Weekly amount 
1 bedroom (or shared accommodation) Up to £250 
2 bedrooms Up to £290 
3 bedrooms Up to £340 
4 bedrooms Up to £400 _
https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/what-youll-get

So a single person in a four bedroom privetly-rented house would be allowed £400 *per week* towards the rent. That benefit is not being cut. People renting privately are not having their benefits cut if they have empty bedrooms - only people renting council houses.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *This is so not true.But hey you carry on believing the rubbish we are fed.*


Well Blair and Brown had the keys for how long? Who started the bank bail outs?

This government took over a bankrupt country, even you can see they were not to blame, but they will lose the next election then Labour can blame the Tories 1 term in office for as long as it takes to out them again, they will lose because the population only has short-term memory, whereas government policies are long term.

You keep those blinkers on sweetheart, dont bump your head looking around you


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

I think the country was going downhill well before Blair and Brown were involved


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> That's true about buying, but not true about private renting. If you buy a house you don't get any housing benefit at all - obviously. But if you rent privately, and you qualify for housing benefit, you get more benefit depending upon the size of the property:
> 
> _Private rent
> How much you get is usually based on the Local Housing Allowance Limit in your area, your income and circumstances.
> ...


I'm not talking about benefits, but the cost of renting. A three bedroomed property would have a higher rent than a two bedroomed property.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I'm not talking about benefits, but the cost of renting. A three bedroomed property would have a higher rent than a two bedroomed property.


Sorry - my mistake. I thought you were talking about benefits because that's what this thread was about - the benefit being cut from people in council houses if they have spare bedrooms. Their rent isn't being cut, only the benefit they receive - if they *are* on housing benefit, that is, which many people renting council houses aren't.

The fact remains that a single person living in a four-bedroomed *council* house would have his benefit reduced, ostensibly to force him out of his home to make room for a larger family. Yet a single person living in a four-bedroomed *privately rented* house wouldn't have his benefits reduced in order to force him out of his home to make way for a larger family. Why?

The same parameters apply to both renters. In both cases, it's moving people out of homes deemed unsuitable for them. In both cases it's displacing one person for a family. In both cases, it's our taxes going to pay for the benefit. So why is one section of the renting community being penalised and not the other? Hardly fair, is it?

And apart from it being discriminatory, the more cynical of us would be forgiven for thinking that it is yet another Tory ploy to force people out of council houses so a) they can sell them off and b) their proerty owning cronies can charge higher and higher rents as the number of council houses fall and thier rental properties become more in demand.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> That's true about buying, but not true about private renting. If you buy a house you don't get any housing benefit at all - obviously. But if you rent privately, and you qualify for housing benefit, you get more benefit depending upon the size of the property:
> 
> _Private rent
> How much you get is usually based on the Local Housing Allowance Limit in your area, your income and circumstances.
> ...


It is *UP* to, it does not mean a single person would be allowed the allowance for a 4 bed house  That would be for a big family !



> How much you get depends on:
> 
> your eligible rent - eg whats a reasonable rent for a suitable property where you live
> your household income
> ...


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry - my mistake. I thought you were talking about benefits because that's what this thread was about - the benefit being cut from people in council houses if they have spare bedrooms. Their rent isn't being cut, only the benefit they receive - if they *are* on housing benefit, that is, which many people renting council houses aren't.
> .


No problem - my point was that anyone living in a larger property than they need (rather than would like) will have to pay more for it. This applies to home owners too. In fact, they often far more at risk and have to downsize in order to afford a home.



> The fact remains that a single person living in a four-bedroomed *council* house would have his benefit reduced, ostensibly to force him out of his home to make room for a larger family. Yet a single person living in a four-bedroomed *privately rented* house wouldn't have his benefits reduced in order to force him out of his home to make way for a larger family. Why?
> 
> The same parameters apply to both renters. In both cases, it's moving people out of homes deemed unsuitable for them. In both cases it's displacing one person for a family. In both cases, it's our taxes going to pay for the benefit. So why is one section of the renting community being penalised and not the other? Hardly fair, is it? .


I have no idea why, and didn't know there was a difference in the benefits available for private and council tenants. No, not fair, and doesn't really make sense either.



> And apart from it being discriminatory, the more cynical of us would be forgiven for thinking that it is yet another Tory ploy to force people out of council houses so a) they can sell them off and b) their proerty owning cronies can charge higher and higher rents as the number of council houses fall and thier rental properties become more in demand.


Councils don't want to own council houses - it's too expensive. Nothing to do with Tories - our Lib Dem council sold off all the council houses many years ago - long before the Tories ever had a hope of getting into power.

Although I do think they want to protect all the buy to let landlords that have entered the market, because they want to keep property prices up. I don't think this is just a Tory policy though. John Prescott bulldozed many council houses in order to keep property houses up and he was Labour!

Personally, I think whether private or council, there should be controlled rents with assured tenancies like there used to be. OK, some took it to the extreme which was one of the reasons they got rid of it, but if you want to invest in property it should be for the long term, not a get rich quick scheme which has contributed to the ridiculous price of housing that we have now.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

> Councils don't want to own council houses - it's too expensive.


I struggle to understand that comment

Houses built in the 50's and rented out for 60 years STILL generating income cant be a loss maker, if that was the case there would be no BTL properties, plus BTL is never on the scale of council housing, imagine owning 5000 properties all netting £50 - £90 a week, while maintaining them is done on the cheap (they employ their own workmen)...

Bromford Housing:-
£22,000,000 surplus last year, up from £15,800,000 the previous year
Operating margin 35% up from 32% the previous year
Operating cash flow £56,000,000 a year


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> Well Blair and Brown had the keys for how long? Who started the bank bail outs?
> 
> This government took over a bankrupt country, even you can see they were not to blame, but they will lose the next election then Labour can blame the Tories 1 term in office for as long as it takes to out them again, they will lose because the population only has short-term memory, whereas government policies are long term.
> 
> You keep those blinkers on sweetheart, dont bump your head looking around you


Ramesh Patel: Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise?
*Interesting read.*


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> That's true about buying, but not true about private renting. If you buy a house you don't get any housing benefit at all - obviously. But if you rent privately, and you qualify for housing benefit, you get more benefit depending upon the size of the property:
> 
> _Private rent
> How much you get is usually based on the Local Housing Allowance Limit in your area, your income and circumstances.
> ...


I did not know this. And it throws a whole different light on the discussion. Divide and conquer all over again


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Families in private rented accomodation or buying their home will have to pay more for a larger house/flat - why should it be any different for you?


if they choose to buy their house then tough



Pointermum said:


> I would love a spare bedroom for guests to sleep over or to out more junk in BUT it would be a luxury  So why do you NEED it


because im disabled and need a spare room for things i need

its not like im wanting it for people to stay over


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> if they choose to buy their house then tough
> 
> *because im disabled *and need a spare room for things i need
> 
> its not like im wanting it for people to stay over


I think if you were you would have more understanding of others who are. Yes, that is me calling BS. Sorry, had the truth drug (red wine ) tonight.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

myshkin said:


> I think if you were you would have more understanding of others who are. Yes, that is me calling BS. Sorry, had the truth drug (red wine ) tonight.


call what you like, it doesnt change the fact that i am


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> if they choose to buy their house then tough
> 
> because im disabled and need a spare room for things i need
> 
> its not like im wanting it for people to stay over


I suggest you have a reread - I said buying a house OR privately rented.

And if that is your opinion, then the same applies to you. If you want more room you have to pay extra for it - TOUGH!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I suggest you have a reread - I said buying a house OR privately rented.
> 
> And if that is your opinion, then the same applies to you. If you want more room you have to pay extra for it - TOUGH!


*But if you are on low income they've got you by the short and curlies,because you wouldn't have a choice.
Once again, why hit those less well off?*


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2012)

I must admit, I didn't read all this, as I'm in Oz, tho I did get a vague gist in the 1st pages. I have to say, tho, every time I pass it, I read Bedroom taxi... and I think WOW!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I cant work out the sense in having a National Minimum Wage which is only £12844 PA and which then means the earner pays £1647 in tax and stamp back to the government....and netts the earner only 87% of the NMW....

and then they claim WFTC (off the govenment) and/or HB


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

paddyjulie said:


> I think the country was going downhill well before Blair and Brown were involved


yeah! lets blame Maggie Thatcher! (or any previous Tory PM)

its always good to have a plan B


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> yeah! lets blame Maggie Thatcher! (or any previous Tory PM)
> 
> its always good to have a plan B


*lol we didn't need a plan B once the tories got in.:nono:
We knew from the start they would screw the poor..Always been an easy target for the tories.
The only pan needed now is to get them OUT.*


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> yeah! lets blame Maggie Thatcher! (or any previous Tory PM)
> 
> its always good to have a plan B


Think a lot of people have forgotten about Thatcher Thatcher the Milk snatcher


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I suggest you have a reread - I said buying a house OR privately rented.
> 
> And if that is your opinion, then the same applies to you. If you want more room you have to pay extra for it - TOUGH!


its not that we want more room, we NEED more room



JANICE199 said:


> hy hit those less well off?


because the tories always do


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> its not that we want more room, we NEED more room
> 
> because the tories always do


A lot of people NEED more room.....my Mother who is severely disabled NEEDS more room but was told no chance. She struggles in a one bedroom place.....so you can consider yourself very lucky........

And though the Tories are far from wonderful......Labour didnt exactly do a great job of getting the Country in order.....did they......think we may be suffering now partly because Labour was eager to dish the dosh to anyone and everyone.....pushovers.....couldnt 
happen anywhere else in the world.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

chichi said:


> A lot of people NEED more room.....my Mother who is severely disabled NEEDS more room but was told no chance. She struggles in a one bedroom place.....so you can consider yourself very lucky........
> 
> And though the Tories are far from wonderful......Labour didnt exactly do a great job of getting the Country in order.....did they......think we may be suffering now partly because Labour was eager to dish the dosh to anyone and everyone.....pushovers.....couldnt
> happen anywhere else in the world.


yes but the tories are penalising the wrong people

i feel sorry for your mum and yes we are very lucky, i still find it disgusting though


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> if they* choose to buy their house then tough*


Some have no choice, they do not fit any criteria for council housing so they have to skimp and scrape in order to get a roof over their head.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> Ramesh Patel: Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise?
> *Interesting read.*


I don't think many people can have read your link Jan, judging by what folk are posting about the previous government on here.

So I'll c&p a few bits (and remember, the economist writing this article is himself a tory):

_CLAIM 1 
The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world.

After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7? ............. Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction _

*So when the Tories took over, we had the lowest debt of all the G7 countries, and during Labour's term of government they reduced a debt of 42% (inherited from the previous tory government) to 35%.*

_CLAIM 2 
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

........ in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008._

*So Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% from the previous tory government and reduced it by over 50%*

Still glad you voted Tory? It's about time some people stopped blindly believing all the bullshit they are fed by this government and that they read in the tabloids.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

paddyjulie said:


> Think a lot of people have forgotten about Thatcher Thatcher the Milk snatcher


as you mentioned milk, did you know schools still get a milk grant, i think its an EU thing, you try finding a school that hands out milk though.... Thatcher wasnt the only snatcher (my wife worked in education)


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol we didn't need a plan B once the tories got in.:nono:
> We knew from the start they would screw the poor..Always been an easy target for the tories.
> The only pan needed now is to get them OUT.*


Blair legged it and chucked the keys to Brown, who looked happy to get out, frankly i wish that Labour had won the election, if only to force them to clear up the shite they have left us in


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

northnsouth said:


> Some have no choice, they do not fit any criteria for council housing so they have to skimp and scrape in order to get a roof over their head.


private rent? 
live with family?
live with friends?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> as you mentioned milk, did you know schools still get a milk grant, i think its an EU thing, you try finding a school that hands out milk though.... Thatcher wasnt the only snatcher (my wife worked in education)


My kids school hands out milk they take a carton each home every day. Some weeks there weeks they put all the milk they have left out for the parents to take home, we have come home with carriers full of milk. My 2 love the milk they get from school its a novelty for them atm cant get them to drink it at home!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> if they choose to buy their house then tough
> 
> because im disabled and need a spare room for things i need
> 
> its not like im wanting it for people to stay over





tinktinktinkerbell said:


> private rent?
> live with family?
> live with friends?


Right back atcha 

You get a home with subsidised rent. If its not good enough, you yourself have posted the alternatives


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

oh I so wish I could find the thread ...when the election was coming up..Tories v Labour 

I think a few would say 'told you so'


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> private rent?
> live with family?
> live with friends?


This is my kids not me.... £650+ a month in rent for a one bed , why the hell should they be paying some one elses mortgage.
Live at home... I don't want my kids living with me at their ages any more than they want to. Would you?
Living with friends.... They did that through uni and college, they have out grown the whole sharing cold pizza and beers stage.

no choice but to buy..


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't think many people can have read your link Jan, judging by what folk are posting about the previous government on here.
> 
> So I'll c&p a few bits (and remember, the economist writing this article is himself a tory):
> 
> ...


*Thank you Val for that..I think even when people are given the facts they still wont face the truth.But then they do say, " the truth hurts".
It was obvious from the start the tories would never help the poor.Some things will never change.
Even putting aside any of the parties, its so evident that this government have and are still targeting the poor like no other government.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

paddyjulie said:


> oh I so wish I could find the thread ...when the election was coming up..Tories v Labour
> 
> I think a few would say 'told you so'


Do you mean these two? 

http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/101395-who-will-win-tories-labour.html

http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/98517-general-election-whos-everyone-voting.html

There's some interesting reading on there.

There were people who believed the lies spoonfed to them by the tabloids and the Tory spin doctors that Labour had run the economy down - when in reality during Labour's term of government, their policies ensured we had the lowest debt of all the G7 countries and they reduced a debt of 42% GDP (inherited from the previous tory government) to 35% GDP.

There were people who were convinced that the Liberals were a bright new force who would change everything - and then the minute the Liberals were offered a sniff of power they reneged on all their beliefs, ideals and promises and became Tory lapdogs.

There were people who couldn't be bothered to vote at all - still can't understand such apathy 

And then there were people who were convinced that the country would be safe in Tory hands - and wouldn't listen when those of us who had lived through the Thatcher years tried to tell them how the Tories are only interested in the rich and the uber rich.

Very interesting indeed!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Do you mean these two?
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/101395-who-will-win-tories-labour.html
> 
> ...


* God and to think i thought Nick Clegg would be a breathe of fresh air.:nono:
I hated the way he went from labour to tories. Talk about selling your soul to the highest bidder. That has been his downfall from that night.
Also i have to admit, ( as you know) i have never voted. Purlely because i can't bring myself to vote for a bunch of liars.Next time round might be the 1st time though.*


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> There were people who couldn't be bothered to vote at all - still can't understand such apathy


Because under Labour we were at war....and still are!

Because under Labour we gave away billions in aid to people who don't warrant it...and still do!

Because under Labour billions was poured into Europe with little return...No change there!

Because under Labour the division between rich and poor got bigger and bigger...And still does!

Because under labour energy prices were allowed to rocket unrestrained...and still are!

Because under Labour, government was run by the old boys network with knighthoods and favours galore...and still is!

Because under Labour they didn't listen to the people...and still don't!

Because whoever is in power makes little or no difference to the masses.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *  God and to think i thought Nick Clegg would be a breathe of fresh air.:nono:
> I hated the way he went from labour to tories. Talk about selling your soul to the highest bidder. That has been his downfall from that night.*


You are not on your own Jan. I can remember watching their TV debate and thinking how "normal" and sincere he was - but with the promise of a whiff of power he showed he was exactly like all the rest - in it for himself. I hope he enjoys his time as Cameron's lapdog because it's the last time he'll come anywhere near to governing this country. How will anyone ever again believe any election promises he makes after the university fees fiasco? I reckon the Liberals will ditch him as leader before the next general election, but I don't think it will make any difference to the way people feel let down by his party. He has single-handedly put the Liberal movement back about 50 years.



JANICE199 said:


> *Also i have to admit, ( as you know) i have never voted. Purlely because i can't bring myself to vote for a bunch of liars.Next time round might be the 1st time though. *


heh heh - we all live and learn


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

poohdog said:


> Because under Labour we were at war....and still are!
> 
> Because under Labour we gave away billions in aid to people who don't warrant it...and still do!
> 
> ...


If someone feels that a party in power is as bad as you make out here, in my book that makes it even harder to understand how they can stand to one side and shrug their shoulders as if it's nothing to do with them. If people always did that, the Berlin Wall would still be standing, the Ceausescus would still be bleeding the people of Romania dry etc etc. While ever people are willing to meekly roll over and allow people in power to walk all over them, the people in power will.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

poohdog said:


> Because under Labour we were at war....and still are!
> 
> Because under Labour we gave away billions in aid to people who don't warrant it...and still do!
> 
> ...


Completely agree - and I'm not a Tory supporter - I still feel angry that I voted for that idiot Blair in 1997. Never again, but the public couldn't see it (and there was no realistic opposition).

Blair was the best Conservative Prime Minister that the Conservatives never had! The difference is that Tory's do what it says on the tin - Labour, however, claim to be for the people and then sell them to the devil. They got in bed with the Bankers, they kept the housing market artifically high all of which enabled them to throw money at the less well off and give the illusion that they were doing good. They relied on the money markets and lived of champagne instead of really investing in industry and creating a strong future and now the crash has happened and the coffers are empty, they have nothing to offer.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Completely agree - and I'm not a Tory supporter - I still feel angry that I voted for that idiot Blair in 1997. Never again, but the public couldn't see it (and there was no realistic opposition).
> 
> Blair was the best Conservative Prime Minister that the Conservatives never had! The difference is that Tory's do what it says on the tin - Labour, however, claim to be for the people and then sell them to the devil. They got in bed with the Bankers, they kept the housing market artifically high all of which enabled them to throw money at the less well off and give the illusion that they were doing good. They relied on the money markets and lived of champagne instead of really investing in industry and creating a strong future and now the crash has happened and the coffers are empty, they have nothing to offer.


So when the Tories took over, we had the lowest debt of all the G7 countries, and during Labour's term of government they reduced a debt of 42% (inherited from the previous tory government) to 35%.

CLAIM 2 
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

........ in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008.

So Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% from the previous tory government and reduced it by over 50%

*Did you not read this? Lets not forget that before labour it was a tory government.That's where the trouble started.*


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Did you not read this? Lets not forget that before labour it was a tory government.That's where the trouble started.


"Lies, damned lies and statistics"!

Labour inherited a growing economy in 1997 so were in the position to be able to do what they did. What they failed to do was make a long lasting, growing economy. They are always so keen to tell us that it was the global banking crisis that was responsible for our problems, not them! But they were the ones in bed with the bankers because while it brought in the gold, they were on top. What they failed to do was invest in our manufacturing industry like Germany did. And as for housing (which is, after all, what this thread it about) they behaved like a right wing Tory! Prescott bulldozing houses to keep house prices high! Even now, they still talk about housing as some kind of bank/investment where prices must be kept up. They had thirteen years to do something about it - they could have built more affordable housing, they could have brought in some form of rent control, but they wanted the champagne lifestyle with the money makes. They sold themselves to the American ideal of capitlism at any cost because while the sun shone it brought in enough to be able to support the less well off. It was never going to be able to be sustained and it was their short sightedness that has left us where we are.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> "Lies, damned lies and statistics"!
> 
> Labour inherited a growing economy in 1997 so were in the position to be able to do what they did. What they failed to do was make a long lasting, growing economy. They are always so keen to tell us that it was the global banking crisis that was responsible for our problems, not them! But they were the ones in bed with the bankers because while it brought in the gold, they were on top. What they failed to do was invest in our manufacturing industry like Germany did. And as for housing (which is, after all, what this thread it about) they behaved like a right wing Tory! Prescott bulldozing houses to keep house prices high! Even now, they still talk about housing as some kind of bank/investment where prices must be kept up. They had thirteen years to do something about it - they could have built more affordable housing, they could have brought in some form of rent control, but they wanted the champagne lifestyle with the money makes. They sold themselves to the American ideal of capitlism at any cost because while the sun shone it brought in enough to be able to support the less well off. It was never going to be able to be sustained and it was their short sightedness that has left us where we are.


*Well " if " they are all lies and statistics you might be surprised at the FACT that that report came from a tory.:lol::lol:*


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Well " if " they are all lies and statistics you might be surprised at the FACT that that report came from a tory.:lol::lol:*


Haven't you discovered yet, that there's very little difference between politicians - they're all mates up in Westminster - irrespective of party allegiencies. It's us that their policies affect that are the ones who feel so passionately about things - they're more concerned about their careers


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> "Lies, damned lies and statistics"!
> 
> Labour inherited a growing economy in 1997 so were in the position to be able to do what they did. What they failed to do was make a long lasting, growing economy. They are always so keen to tell us that it was the global banking crisis that was responsible for our problems, not them! But they were the ones in bed with the bankers because while it brought in the gold, they were on top. What they failed to do was invest in our manufacturing industry like Germany did. And as for housing (which is, after all, what this thread it about) they behaved like a right wing Tory! Prescott bulldozing houses to keep house prices high! Even now, they still talk about housing as some kind of bank/investment where prices must be kept up. They had thirteen years to do something about it - they could have built more affordable housing, they could have brought in some form of rent control, but they wanted the champagne lifestyle with the money makes. They sold themselves to the American ideal of capitlism at any cost because while the sun shone it brought in enough to be able to support the less well off. It was never going to be able to be sustained and it was their short sightedness that has left us where we are.


Lets be honest, we were heading for a bump no matter who was in..!


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

northnsouth said:


> This is my kids not me.... £650+ a month in rent for a one bed , why the hell should they be paying some one elses mortgage.
> Live at home... I don't want my kids living with me at their ages any more than they want to. Would you?
> Living with friends.... They did that through uni and college, they have out grown the whole sharing cold pizza and beers stage.
> 
> no choice but to buy..


Agree with this... private rent in some parts is crippling  I pay more in rent than i would pay for a mortgage on a property this size. (council tax, rent, electricity and phone line rental/tv license sets me back around £1300 a month. 2 bed flat in an average part of town)

Iv shared before, its not a nice way to live and I dont think I should have to... 
i know people who got given a place whilst working minimal hours in a skill-less job, I work a 60 hr week, and have had to study and graft to get the job I have, why should I have less private space, restricted to living out of 1 room and sharing communal areas, than people who havent bothered (they really havent). Similarly Im nearly 30.... why should my mum suffer having to put up with a 30 yr old still at home? Shes done her bit, its my life now, not hers to deal with.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Right back atcha
> 
> You get a home with subsidised rent. If its not good enough, you yourself have posted the alternatives


where did i say it wasnt good enough? i actually love this flat


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> where did i say it wasnt good enough? i actually love this flat


I think this referred to your disgust that you had to pay an extra £10 a week for it.

Welcome to the real world!


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

It is The SUPER RICH (who make up less than 5% of the population) who have more than 80% of the wealth in this country, one of many. It is they who control the RICH ie; Politicians, business, who are manipulated to tell the middle class, to blame the poorest and most vulnerable in our society for the state of the economy.

What makes me really laugh is that we bailed out the Banks, we had to, but we did it with with a massive loan that came from the same people who lost all the money to begin with, 

So we are not only paying back the money that they lost in order to keep the banks afloat but we are paying it back twice with interest hahahahahahahaa sorry just dying of laugh right now because of the irony. 

While everyone is blaming the Governments and it's respective political parties, or the poorest people or single parents or stray dogs or anyone, we will never be able to see the truth, I think they call it DIVIDE AND RULE 

Sorry for laughing, it wasn't meant to be harsh


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I think this referred to your disgust that you had to pay an extra £10 a week for it.
> 
> Welcome to the real world!


oh how patronising 

i am in the real world darling, where the poor and the disabled are penalised


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> oh how patronising
> 
> i am in the real world darling, where the poor and the disabled are penalised


To be fair, everyone except those at the top are penalised.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> To be fair, everyone except those at the top are penalised.


the poorest and the disabled are penalised the most


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

grumpy goby said:


> To be fair, everyone except those at the top are penalised.


I totally agree with this, its always been the same and always will be


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the poorest and the disabled are penalised the most


In your opinion, cos its your experiance. I feel penalised cos my pay hasnt increased in yrs, yet i work 60hrs a week, my fares to get to work increases 6% a yr, my rent is increasing at a similar rate, all my other bills are flying up.

My OH is self employed yet not actually earning a wage atm (after his clinic rent, lisences etc) due to the economy, we recieve zero assistance for him.

So effectively I am working more hours, as companies make cut backs and we are required to work harder and do 2+ peoples jobs, for less money.

I have to say I feel pretty hard done by myself.

I have nothing left over to save. I have a takeaway once a month as a treat, but thats all... Neither of us have had new clothes for over a yr, we eat basics of everything, I dont indulge in any luxuries at all.

I know "poor" people who enjoy life an awful lot more, have newer gadgets, have a better quality of life, get to see their loved ones etc.

But I KNOW that they are penalised too.... I dont claim to be worse off, we are all being punished. Just in different ways.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> oh how patronising
> 
> i am in the real world darling, where the poor and the disabled are penalised


As well as those on minimum wage who are struggling to make ends meet....young working families....now people that earn 50K losing their Child Benefit....50K not being a massive wage in some parts of the Country where housing is expensive to rent or buy (and regardless of what people here seem to think.....Council housing is almost impossible to get in some areas...its buy your own home or pay somebody elses mortgage for them in private rented accommodation).....its not just the poor and disabled.....and lets not forget....some of the "poor" are poor from choice.....like those that dont work because they would rather sit on their lazy @rses and those "poor" that spend (tax payers) money on booze and cigs....making them "poor" .....

The fat cats are laughing though


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> In your opinion, cos its your experiance. I feel penalised cos my pay hasnt increased in yrs, yet i work 60hrs a week, my fares to get to work increases 6% a yr, my rent is increasing at a similar rate, all my other bills are flying up.
> 
> My OH is self employed yet not actually earning a wage atm due to the economy, we recieve zero assistance for him.
> 
> ...


most of those things apply to us too

i do agree that there are a lot hard done by but i do think the disabled are penalised more as a lot of disabled cant work yet are getting money taken off them

i will never work in a normal job as im too ill yet when they take working tax credits away next year (we are self employed) we will be screwed, i cant work as i said my OH is my full time carer, there will be no option for us

so while i feel for you and your partner i think we are worse off than you because we have no choices


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> most of those things apply to us too
> 
> i do agree that there are a lot hard done by but i do think the disabled are penalised more as a lot of disabled cant work yet are getting money taken off them
> 
> ...


We dont have any choices either. 

Rather than the "my life is harder than yours" attitude why not just accept we are all suffering.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> We dont have any choices either.
> 
> Rather than the "my life is harder than yours" attitude why not just accept we are all suffering.


because some are suffering more than others, why cant you see that

you're suffering is only having a take away once a month and not buying new clothes for a year

ours is eating one meal and not even being able to afford charity shop clothes

yes we all (well not all) are suffering but there are different levels

you do have choices, if your partner has no work from his self employment then he has the choice to look for a job


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> because some are suffering more than others, why cant you see that
> 
> you're suffering is only having a take away once a month and not buying new clothes for a year
> 
> ...


He has a skill, he wouldnt get a job anywhere "overqualified"

And I have been through the cant afford to eat thing, more than once. we just eat once a day now. Neither of us eat lunch or breakfast. And been that way for 18months now... its just how it is. We even manage to make most meals last 2 days (normally if its used a tin of something to make, it will spread 2 days)

And I rely on birthdays for clothes.. this year my mum is buying me a pair of jeans. I just make do til then

Dont patronise me, one takeaway isnt suffering, its our treat. A treat that I see people (family) on benefits enjoying alot more often than I can. It was an example of not having disposable income.

I know ppl on benefits for health reasons, and we suffer similar problems.

But I work 60 hrs a week on top of it and so care less that I dont go out cos Im busy sleeping 

Trust me, i wouldnt be skint if i didnt have to be. We dont have these choices you seem to assume we have. We just have life.

WE ARE ALL SUFFERING


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

grumpy goby said:


> We dont have any choices either.  Rather than the "my life is harder than yours" attitude why not just accept we are all suffering.


And people like you are the ones being forced to go elsewhere as there is no incentive to stay and continue working hard in the UK..


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

northnsouth said:


> And people like you are the ones being forced to go elsewhere as there is no incentive to stay and continue working hard in the UK..


And we will. We are looking to go to NZ in the coming yrs. (the company i work for are aus, and iv been working my way into the right groups for transfer  )


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Some working families are struggling to put good food on the table for their children...having multiple kids sleeping in one room...no funds for adequate heating...there are many FAR worse off than yourself


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

chichi said:


> Some working families are struggling to put good food on the table for their children...having multiple kids sleeping in one room...no funds for adequate heating...there are many FAR worse off than yourself


I will accept this... people with kids are the ones I really feel for.

I just resent people telling me that they are the only ones suffering - everyone is hurting, I dont use my heating for money reasons, but me and the OH are young enough to handle just putting on an extra jumper  Kiddies are less hardy!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> WE ARE ALL SUFFERING


i'll say again i agree with that

everyone but the rich is suffering

but there are different levels of suffering


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

chichi said:


> Some working families are struggling to put good food on the table for their children...having multiple kids sleeping in one room...no funds for adequate heating...there are many FAR worse off than yourself


was that to me?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> I just resent people telling me that they are the only ones suffering


i never once said that


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> was that to me?


It was....


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i never once said that


you insinuated people like us had a choice. we dont.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Sadly you are not the only ones..... 60 hours a week is a lot of tax being paid out for nothing in return. This is the tragedy, make it worth people who can give something back an incentive to stay... Make it worthwhile working hard...

Sorry, I am going off track, this is about taking benefits off the deserving


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

chichi said:


> It was....


ok

we struggle to put food on the table, we cant afford eating, kids can run around to keep warm, i cant



grumpy goby said:


> you insinuated people like us had a choice. we dont.


could your partner not get a job doing the kind of thing hes doing self employed?

i still didnt make out we were the only ones suffering like you said i did


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> I will accept this... people with kids are the ones I really feel for.
> 
> I just resent people telling me that they are the only ones suffering - everyone is hurting, I dont use my heating for money reasons, but me and the OH are young enough to handle just putting on an extra jumper  Kiddies are less hardy!


Sorry GG wasnt aimed at you......my phone is a b*gger for leaving quotes off

You shouldnt be suffering financial hardship like you are when working so hard.....makes me very angry.......


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ok
> 
> we struggle to put food on the table, we cant afford eating, kids can run around to keep warm, i cant
> 
> ...


Nope. Its a closed shop, and very high competition for very few jobs in clinics. Its all client based income, not salaried.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ok
> 
> we struggle to put food on the table, we cant afford eating, kids can run around to keep warm, i cant
> 
> ...


Sorry....I dont mean to sound harsh but you are coming across as very selfish...maybe its just the way Im reading your posts. Kids running around to keep warm....are you serious.....cold damp environments are very detrimental to young childrens health and wellbeing.....


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

This seems like it has turned into a suffering competition...


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> Nope. Its a closed shop, and very high competition for very few jobs


fair enough



chichi said:


> Sorry....I dont mean to sound harsh but you are coming across as very selfish...maybe its just the way Im reading your posts. Kids running around to keep warm....are you serious.....cold damp environments are very detrimental to young childrens health and wellbeing.....


ive grew to be selfish yes, no one gives a crap about me so why should i about others

and yes kids can run round to keep warm as well i as putting on layers


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> fair enough
> 
> ive grew to be selfish yes, no one gives a crap about me so why should i about others
> 
> and yes kids can run round to keep warm as well i as putting on layers


Thats a good point for me to give up I think...obviously not gunna get anywhere with this lol.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

grumpy goby said:


> Thats a good point for me to give up I think...obviously not gunna get anywhere with this lol.


i said fair enough to you, i dont know why you would need to continue it anyway


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> fair enough
> 
> ive grew to be selfish yes, no one gives a crap about me so why should i about others
> 
> and yes kids can run round to keep warm as well i as putting on layers


im sorry but i think thats disgusting! we are far from well off and the energy prices are crippling us already! i would go without food, clothing anything to make sure my house was warm for my kids! not being funny but you need to get your priorities sorted love!


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i said fair enough to you, i dont know why you would need to continue it anyway


It was really the latter comment about kids running to keep warm. Its sad that society accept a quality of life for children so low that it probably hasnt been acceptable in about 50yrs. 

Kids need the best possible start in life, basic accepted comforts like a warm home should be included in that :/

Im very glad i dont have to make the sort of choices others make for their kids... its one thing making sacrifices for oneself but for your child people will nigh on starve themselves....

I think il wait til i get to NZ to have kids


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> fair enough
> 
> ive grew to be selfish yes, no one gives a crap about me so why should i about others
> 
> and yes kids can run round to keep warm as well i as putting on layers


Well at least you are honest and admit you are selfish.....and obvs someone does give a crap if you have a fulltime carer.....and a 2 bedroom home. Some disabled people would be grateful for those two things alone.

When I think of my poor Mum and how she struggles....yet I never hear her complain....only says how she feels sorry for young families struggling to bring up kids in such hard financial times.......such different outlooks from two people in similar situations....maybe cos she was born in a time when people cared about each other...not a case of "Im alright Jack....sod everyone else"


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

harley bear said:


> im sorry but i think thats disgusting! we are far from well off and the energy prices are crippling us already! i would go without food, clothing anything to make sure my house was warm for my kids! bot being funny but you need to get your priorities sorted love!


excuse me? i do have my priorities sorted thanks 

we pay bills (food, electric, water, internet) and thats it, weve already cut back where we can, weve got the cheapest electric supplier, we cant change water sadly, we are down to 1-2 meals a day


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> fair enough
> 
> ive grew to be selfish yes, no one gives a crap about me so why should i about others
> 
> and yes kids can run round to keep warm as well i as putting on layers


You sound as though you think the world owes you something. You are forever going to be a very unhappy person until you realise how lucky you are to be where you are. Be thankful you have clothes on your back and a roof over your head. Be thankful you have a spare room you can pay £10 for instead of living without one and being £10 richer a week. Be thankful you live in the UK because lets be honest, whilst we all sit here and whinge about it, we aren't starving to death or getting shot in the street for having an opinion.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> excuse me? i do have my priorities sorted thanks
> 
> we pay bills (food, electric, water, internet) and thats it, weve already cut back where we can, weve got the cheapest electric supplier, we cant change water sadly, we are down to 1-2 meals a day


dont play the woe is me bull **** with me! we have been there on benefits when oh lost his job, 2young babies a 3bed house to look after! guess what? my kids were always looked after , loved, fed and WARM! there is no excuse im sorry.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

harley bear said:


> dont play the woe is me bull **** with me! we have been there on benefits when oh lost his job, 2young babies a 3bed house to look after! guess what? my kids were always looked after , loved, fed and WARM! there is no excuse im sorry.


no excuse for what?


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> excuse me? i do have my priorities sorted thanks
> 
> we pay bills (food, electric, water, internet) and thats it, weve already cut back where we can, weve got the cheapest electric supplier, we cant change water sadly, we are down to 1-2 meals a day


You're not the only one who doesn't eat 3 square meals a day a lot of working families can't afford that either which is even more disheartening when you're working your socks off and still can't afford to eat properly


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

skip said:


> You're not the only one who doesn't eat 3 square meals a day a lot of working families can't afford that either which is even more disheartening when you're working your socks off and still can't afford to eat properly


i include myself in that cause i work too


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> Thats a good point for me to give up I think...obviously not gunna get anywhere with this lol.


I get where you are coming from....have to wonder if some people post things to cause a reaction...surely nobody really thinks its okay for kids to have to run around in their own homes to keep warm


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

skip said:


> You're not the only one who doesn't eat 3 square meals a day a lot of working families can't afford that either which is even more disheartening when you're working your socks off and still can't afford to eat properly


yep, i bearly eat at all if im honest, one meal a day if that!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

chichi said:


> I get where you are coming from....have to wonder if some people post things to cause a reaction...surely nobody really thinks its okay for kids to have to run around in their own homes to keep warm


i didnt say it was ok, i said they had the option to do that


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> fair enough
> 
> ive grew to be selfish yes, *no one gives a crap about me *so why should i about others
> 
> and yes kids can run round to keep warm as well i as putting on layers


With your attitude I'm not surprised!

Although, as has been said, you have a full time carer so someone cares for you!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> With your attitude I'm not surprised!
> 
> Although, as has been said, you have a full time carer so someone cares for you!


yeah, just because you are a carer doesnt mean you care


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> most of those things apply to us too
> 
> i do agree that there are a lot hard done by but i do think the disabled are penalised more as a lot of disabled cant work yet are getting money taken off them
> 
> ...





tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i include myself in that cause i *work* too


Make your mind up


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

skip said:


> Make your mind up





tinktinktinkerbell said:


> most of those things apply to us too
> 
> i do agree that there are a lot hard done by but i do think the disabled are penalised more as a lot of disabled cant work yet are getting money taken off them
> 
> ...


...............


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ...............


Like I said make your mind up,you say you can't work and that you do work.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

skip said:


> Like I said make your mind up,you say you can't work and that you do work.


i said i cant work in a normal job IE going out to work for a company with set days/hours etc


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ...............


So you can't work as your to ill or you can work 

Always makes me laugh people manage to *afford* to have internet access yet can't afford to eat  and "most" seem to be able to comment in a eloquent way on here yet "can't" do any form of working from home


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

its all a little ..if it does not affect me and I don't loose out from the cuts carry on with it on here 

the same people who are complaing about this bedrrom tax because it affects them ..think its fine that others are going to loose their child benefit .. a little selfish in my opinion


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Pointermum said:


> So you can't work as your to ill or you can work
> 
> Always makes me laugh people manage to *afford* to have internet access yet can't afford to eat  and "most" seem to be able to comment in a eloquent way on here yet "can't" do any form of working from home


i can work from home where i can set my own hours, i can pick and choose the days that i work, i dont have to go out etc etc

but i will never work in a normal go out 9-5 job for a company where other people decide when i do/dont work and the hours i do

if that internet comment was aimed at me, my job is internet based, if i didnt have the internet i would basically have no money at all


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Pointermum said:


> So you can't work as your to ill or you can work
> 
> Always makes me laugh people manage to *afford* to have internet access yet can't afford to eat  and "most" seem to be able to comment in a eloquent way on here yet "can't" do any form of working from home


I find it strange that many can contribute ardently ON forums yet claim they are unfit for work. They can sit all day argueing the toss on here yet are incapable for various reasons of working!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i can work from home where i can set my own hours, i can pick and choose the days that i work, i dont have to go out etc etc
> 
> but i will never work in a normal go out 9-5 job for a company where other people decide when i do/dont work and the hours i do
> 
> *if that internet comment was aimed at me, my job is internet based, if i didnt have the internet i would basically have no money at all*


Lucky you - I would love to pick and choose when I wanted to work, and to not have to struggle into work when it snows 

One minute you say you don't work, the next you say you do work - as someone else said - make your mind up.

Basically, if you didnt have the internet you would still have money. You say you are disabled, so you would get disability allowance, your OH is your carer (which I assume means he/she _does_ care, even though you said a carer doesnt mean they care), so they would carers allowance. You would also have your rent and council tax paid, so wouldnt have to worry about a roof over your head.

The world doesn't _owe_ you anything, so why don't you just be grateful for what you do have?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Lucky you - I would love to pick and choose when I wanted to work, and to not have to struggle into work when it snows
> 
> One minute you say you don't work, the next you say you do work - as someone else said - make your mind up.
> 
> ...


wow and seriously people call me ignorant (and this goes for the comment above yours too)

no, we wouldnt have any money if i didnt have the internet and out little business as apparently im not sick enough to get DLA or ESA (there are people worse off than me being kicked off it) yet im too sick to go on JSA as i said i can not work in a normal job

so no we would get no money if we didnt have the internet and im assuming therefore wouldnt get HB/CTB

oh and ive never said i dont work, stop making things up 

oh and i only pick and choose when i want to work because i have no other choice


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Well you seem to manage to type OK - get a job typing up manuscripts, get your OH to deliver them when they are done - you don't need the internet for that 

And to be honest I would rather be called ignorant for assuming someone that manages to type so much while sitting at some sort of keyboard is able to do some sort of work, than to be sitting there telling the world and his brother that I am suffering much more than anyone else and they all owe me something 

It must be exhausting feeling so bitter and hard done by all the time.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Well you seem to manage to type OK - get a job typing up manuscripts, get your OH to deliver them when they are done - you don't need the internet for that
> 
> And to be honest I would rather be called ignorant for assuming someone that manages to type so much while sitting at some sort of keyboard is able to do some sort of work, than to be sitting there telling the world and his brother that I am suffering much more than anyone else and they all owe me something
> 
> It must be exhausting feeling so bitter and hard done by all the time.


right and who sits with me while my OH has to deliver the manuscripts then 

ignorant ignorant person  you're talking like ive said i cant do any form of work and if thats what you are saying then way to twist my words 

oh and FYI i cant type every day, i dont even come on here every day, some days it takes all my energy just to get out of bed, wouldnt expect an ignorant person like you to understand that though


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> right and who sits with me while my OH has to deliver the manuscripts then
> 
> ignorant ignorant person  you're talking like ive said i cant do any form of work and if thats what you are saying then way to twist my words
> 
> oh and FYI i cant type every day, i dont even come on here every day, some days it takes all my energy just to get out of bed, wouldnt expect an ignorant person like you to understand that though


So do you work or dont you?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Does throwing insults at me make you feel better?

Thats good news, it might take some of the bitterness away


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

DT said:


> So do you work or dont you?


oh for gods sake, do i really have to answer this again

go back and read


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Does throwing insults at me make you feel better?
> 
> Thats good news, it might take some of the bitterness away


does being ignorant about the disabled make you feel good?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> oh for gods sake, do i really have to answer this again
> 
> go back and read



I was actually going to relate my own experiences regarding working, which may be similar to yours!
so I'll ask again, do you or dont you work?
and no need to roll your eyes!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> does being ignorant about the disabled make you feel good?


Nope - but then I don't feel I am.

I can only comment on what you yourself have written, so if I am ignorant about your particular circumstances its only because you haven't explained them properly


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Nope - but then I don't feel I am.
> 
> I can only comment on what you yourself have written, so if I am ignorant about your particular circumstances its only because you haven't explained them properly


comprende.............


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

DT said:


> I was actually going to relate my own experiences regarding working, which may be similar to yours!
> so I'll ask again, do you or dont you work?
> and no need to roll your eyes!


im self-employed


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> im self-employed


OK!
I was, until I was 35 employed, always worked, then following a serious illness I lost my contract which at that time was with the highways division of the county council.

I had been off sick for almost a year, much of that time I was hospitalized, My doctor told me that I would never be fit to work again (I am as fit as a flea ) BUT! I knew I would find it difficult to be employed again as to many emploers I would be 'unemployable'. I started my own business which turned out to be very successful , that was over 20 years ago and we sold it in 2008.
I could never have do it without the support of an hard working man behind me! but that is my reaason for saying that anyone who can use a telephone, a computer whatever can work¬.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

DT said:


> OK!
> I was, until I was 35 employed, always worked, then following a serious illness I lost my contract which at that time was with the highways division of the county council.
> 
> I had been off sick for almost a year, much of that time I was hospitalized, My doctor told me that I would never be fit to work again (I am as fit as a flea ) BUT! I knew I would find it difficult to be employed again as to many emploers I would be 'unemployable'. I started my own business which turned out to be very successful , that was over 20 years ago and we sold it in 2008.
> I could never have do it without the support of an hard working man behind me! but that is my reaason for saying that *anyone who can use a telephone, a computer whatever can work*¬.


and im not disagreeing with you

well done on your business and im pleased you got over your illness


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Changes said:


> This seems like it has turned into a suffering competition...


Exactly. And while everyone is continuing to meekly accept that their lot is to suffer, they are ignoring the point that you, Jan, me, and others have tried to make - ie that *no-one* needs to suffer. Cutting spending and taking money from the poorest people in the country is not the only way to get this country back on its feet. It is merely the way that suits the present government the most because it puts more money in the coffers of the uber rich - ie their voters.

While ever they have us arguing amongst ourselves like this, they are getting away with it. We could stop it all - but being jealous of one another, trying to get dibs on who's suffering the most, not wanting "my" tax to pay for someone's benefits - while ever we are doing this we are not banding together and rising up to defeat them.

And make no mistake, it is possible to defeat them. We did it with Thatcher and the poll tax - the lady definitely did a U turn with that because of people power.

Wake up people and smell the roses! Stop believing their lies and meekly accepting whatever they try to do to you. Stop begrudging help to those less well off than you. Because if you don't - then you deserve all you get.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> does being ignorant about the disabled make you feel good?


For crying out loud loads of people are disabled, technically I'M DISABLED but I don't sit here like the world owes me.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

GoldenShadow said:


> For crying out loud loads of people are disabled, technically I'M DISABLED but I *don't sit here like the world owes me.*


neither do i


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Exactly. And while everyone is continuing to meekly accept that their lot is to suffer, they are ignoring the point that you, Jan, me, and others have tried to make - ie that *no-one* needs to suffer. Cutting spending and taking money from the poorest people in the country is not the only way to get this country back on its feet. It is merely the way that suits the present government the most because it puts more money in the coffers of the uber rich - ie their voters.
> 
> While ever they have us arguing amongst ourselves like this, they are getting away with it. We could stop it all - but being jealous of one another, trying to get dibs on who's suffering the most, not wanting "my" tax to pay for someone's benefits - while ever we are doing this we are not banding together and rising up to defeat them.
> 
> ...


Going to be a lot harder this time!
Problem is that there are now too many people who are living on handouts just because its ' easier' Those that are working for minimum pay are sick to the back teeth of paddling against the flow (and I dont blame them) and because of this the innocent are suffering¬


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> Going to be a lot harder this time!
> Problem is that there are now too many people who are living on handouts just because its ' easier' Those that are working for minimum pay are sick to the back teeth of paddling against the flow (and I dont blame them) and because of this the innocent are suffering¬


Harder, certainly, because people seem to be more entrenched into this not caring about others syndrome than ever before. I do understand that that is partly because most ordinary people these days don't have much, if any, money to spare - hell, I know this as well as anybody. I work for the NHS and have had my wage (low as it was in the fist place) frozen since this government came into power, while price of everything has rocketted. In additon, the financial state this country is in means we have to find a £35000 shortfall on our endowment mortgage - so bang goes everything we've worked and saved for all our lives and hello to a returement that is going to be a lot less easier money-wise than we thought.

But if something doesn't alter, the number of us on minimum wages, or benefits, is just going to rise and rise until the only ones who can afford anything will be the rich - and you can bet your bottom dollar that they will not put their hands in their pockets to help anyone.


----------



## metame (Sep 25, 2009)

some people dont have any time to spare either


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

metame said:


> some people dont have any time to spare either


I agree with this, I have little time for anything


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2012)

metame said:


> some people dont have any time to spare either


All of us here are out of the house around 7:30/7:45, except for when the lads don't need to be in sixth form/college early...then they get a bit of a lie in. Apart from #2 son (because his college is local)...everyone gets home after 6:30 at the earliest...and it sucks...


----------



## metame (Sep 25, 2009)

jon bda said:


> All of us here are out of the house around 7:30/7:45, except for when the lads don't need to be in sixth form/college early...then they get a bit of a lie in. Apart from #2 son (because his college is local)...everyone gets home after 6:30 at the earliest...and it sucks...


the last 18 months ive regularly been out of the house by 7am and back in after 10pm if at all that day, so i definitley aree it sucks


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2012)

metame said:


> the last 18 months ive regularly been out of the house by 7am and back in after 10pm if at all that day, so i definitley aree it sucks


Its our lads i feel sorry for...they've done it without complaint for years, just to fit in around what me and Shelley need to be doing.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

metame said:


> the last 18 months ive regularly been out of the house by 7am and back in after 10pm if at all that day, so i definitley aree it sucks


 what do you do for a living?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Harder, certainly, because people seem to be more entrenched into this not caring about others syndrome than ever before. I do understand that that is partly because most ordinary people these days don't have much, if any, money to spare - hell, I know this as well as anybody. I work for the NHS and* have had my wage (low as it was in the fist place) frozen since this government came into power, while price of everything has rocketted.* In additon, the financial state this country is in means we have to find a £35000 shortfall on our endowment mortgage - so bang goes everything we've worked and saved for all our lives and hello to a returement that is going to be a lot less easier money-wise than we thought.
> 
> But if something doesn't alter, *the number of us on minimum wages, or benefits, is just going to rise and rise* until the only ones who can afford anything will be the rich - and you can bet your bottom dollar that they will not put their hands in their pockets to help anyone.


I work for a charity as an office manager - I am on minimum wage. My wages have been frozen from before this current government (apart from what they have do to by law to keep in line with MW).

I agree with so much you say (I think you and me have a problem with the way we communicate with each other  ) , but I do, and always will begrudge the taxes I pay going to people that _can_ work, but _choose_ not to.

When I see families that have never worked a day in their lives, but keep having children to keep them on benefits, living in 6 bedroom houses, and then complaining that the house isn't good enough, it riles me. A lot.

I have no problem with benefits going to people that need them (I've been there myself, I _do_ know what its like), my problem is with benefits going to people that 'work' the system, and make living off benefits a career.


----------



## metame (Sep 25, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> what do you do for a living?


support work and we have been stupidly understaffed.

one time i as in work solidly from 7am thursday morning til 3pm tuesday afternoon. No lie.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

metame said:


> support work and we have been stupidly understaffed.
> 
> one time i as in work solidly from 7am thursday morning til 3pm tuesday afternoon. No lie.


bloody hell thats a disgrace!


----------



## metame (Sep 25, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> bloody hell thats a disgrace!


ive not done anything that stupid recently
the tax man loves me for my overtime though


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> I work for a charity as an office manager - I am on minimum wage. My wages have been frozen from before this current government (apart from what they have do to by law to keep in line with MW).
> 
> I agree with so much you say (I think you and me have a problem with the way we communicate with each other  ) , but I do, and always will begrudge the taxes I pay going to people that _can_ work, but _choose_ not to.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you have said there just wanted to add that
I also think that no one claiming a benefit should be better off than someone who works I'm afraid that boils my blood


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

metame said:


> ive not done anything that stupid recently
> the tax man loves me for my overtime though


i bet he does lol



skip said:


> I agree with what you have said there just wanted to add that
> I also think that no one claiming a benefit should be better off than someone who works I'm afraid that boils my blood


i really dont know how anyone is, i mean what the hell are they claiming!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

metame said:


> some people dont have any time to spare either


Well I only work three days a week - but I leave the house at 7.30am and get back at 10.45pm on those three days. I'm not complaining about the long days really because it means I don't have to work on the other four - well, I don't have to go out to work, that is. More and more I have to bring work home with me because if I didn't I wouldn't be able to keep up. In addition, in order to keep my professional registration I have to complete at least 13 pieces of CPD every year - and on top of that I still have a house to clean, a washing and ironing mountain to get through, shopping to do etc etc.



ClaireLouise said:


> I agree with this, I have little time for anything


I am full of admiration for you Claire. I don't know how you manage to find the time to work, study, and look after your family - I'm not surprised you have no free time hun.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Exactly. And while everyone is continuing to meekly accept that their lot is to suffer, they are ignoring the point that you, Jan, me, and others have tried to make - ie that *no-one* needs to suffer. Cutting spending and taking money from the poorest people in the country is not the only way to get this country back on its feet. It is merely the way that suits the present government the most because it puts more money in the coffers of the uber rich - ie their voters.
> 
> While ever they have us arguing amongst ourselves like this, they are getting away with it. We could stop it all - but being jealous of one another, trying to get dibs on who's suffering the most, not wanting "my" tax to pay for someone's benefits - while ever we are doing this we are not banding together and rising up to defeat them.
> 
> ...


*Thank you Val for bringing things back to what we were talking about.
I find it very sad that people will keep venting their anger at each other instead of directing it those that are causing all this hardship.
Sometimes, all it takes is a few minutes to put yourself in the other persons shoes.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> I agree with so much you say (I think you and me have a problem with the way we communicate with each other  ) , but I do, and always will begrudge the taxes I pay going to people that _can_ work, but _choose_ not to.
> 
> When I see families that have never worked a day in their lives, but keep having children to keep them on benefits, living in 6 bedroom houses, and then complaining that the house isn't good enough, it riles me. A lot.
> 
> I have no problem with benefits going to people that need them (I've been there myself, I _do_ know what its like), my problem is with benefits going to people that 'work' the system, and make living off benefits a career.


I agree with you here - I don't think anyone likes that. I know there are people who make a profession out of working the system, and it makes me just as angry as it makes you that they are able to do this. I don't know how they get away with it - but get away with it they do.

My problem with this is twofold. Firstly I think that the majority of people claiming benefits do not fit into this category, but are genuinely needy. Secondly, I think that it suits this government to mislead the rest of us into believing that the majority of benefit recipients *do* fit into this category. That way, they have an inbuilt excuse to save lots of money by cutting benefits across the board. The problem with that is that the genuine cases - people who are genuinely poor and needy - will end up worse off, while those who work the system continue to do so and continue to profit.

It would be much fairer to just police the system more vigourously and stop the scroungers - but it wouldn't net them nearly so much money as just taking benefits off everyone.

As for our communication, I think we ended up at odds with each other because you were sticking up for your friend, who you felt I was attacking - nowt wrong with that!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I think that it suits this government to mislead the rest of us into believing that the majority of benefit recipients *do* fit into this category. That way, they have an inbuilt excuse to save lots of money by cutting benefits across the board.


Just as many spread the message hitting the rich will solve the problems 

You also ignore the fact that tax loopholes are also being closed. In the case of businesses closing one "business loan" loophole is expected to raise around 2 billion despite fears it will make businesses less competitive than those overseas. Then there's a retrospective loophole where a bank could buy back it's own debt, again closed. Then there's articles like Ken Livingstone: has his tax loophole been closed? - Telegraph Blogs It's not in labour's interest to advertise things like this though is it?

Truth is all areas have the potential to be hit. Just some people concentrate only on one section when complaining and pretend the other end is being ignored.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> You also ignore the fact that tax loopholes are also being closed. In the case of businesses closing one "business loan" loophole is expected to raise around 2 billion despite fears it will make businesses less competitive than those overseas. Then there's a retrospective loophole where a bank could buy back it's own debt, again closed. Then there's articles like Ken Livingstone: has his tax loophole been closed? - Telegraph Blogs It's not in labour's interest to advertise things like this though is it?
> 
> Truth is all areas have the potential to be hit. Just some people concentrate only on one section when complaining and pretend the other end is being ignored.


The truth is that corporate tax evasion is running at about 25 billion per year - £25 billion: the cost of tax avoidance » Tax Research UK - so forgive me if I don't raise a hearty cheer that a mere single 2 billion of 25 billion year, after year, after year, is "expected"  to be recouped.

And your accusation that I have ignored the issue of tax loopholes being closed is also inaccurate - look back on this thread and you'll see I addressed the point when I stated that if this was reigned in then it could be used to start a building program that would save the economy without taking money from the members of society who can least afford it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> so forgive me if I don't raise a hearty cheer that a mere single 2 billion of 25 billion year, after year, after year, is "expected"  to be recouped.


So you expect no others to be closed as well? I stated two others which I found easily.



> And your accusation that I have ignored the issue of tax loopholes being closed is also inaccurate - look back on this thread and you'll see I addressed the point when I stated that if this was reigned in then it could be used to start a building program that would save the economy.


Lot of difference between stating IF and IS. I've also stated your solution on how to save the economy is debateable with even expert economists not sure what the best solution is.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> So you expect no others to be closed as well? I stated two others which I found easily.


I expect as little as possible to be closed. It'll be a few token ones here and there to keep the sheep happy, then back to normal tax evasion for the wealthy and the huge corporations.



Goblin said:


> Lot of difference between stating IF and IS.


Yes, but I can't state IS because it ISN'T!  That's the whole point. I can only state what could happen IF they do this because they ARE NOT doing this. You reference an article in which a journalist states that, *if he is correct* (his words, not mine), then people such as Ken Livingstone *MAY* have tax loopholes closed. That is not even saying that this tax loophole is going to be closed, let alone closing *all* tax loopholes and recouping 25 billion per year.



Goblin said:


> I've also stated your solution on how to save the economy is debateable with even expert economists not sure what the best solution is.


Yes you have. So what? I have also stated that this is a tried and tested method that has worked in the past and so could be expected to work again.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I expect as little as possible to be closed. It'll be a few token ones here and there to keep the sheep happy, then back to normal tax evasion for the wealthy and the huge corporations.


Just as I expect you to belittle the fact things are being done as it doesn't suit your discussion point.



> That is not even saying that this tax loophole is going to be closed, let alone closing *all* tax loopholes and recouping 25 billion per year.


Just as I don't expect all the people abusing the benefit system taking away money from those who need it to be held to account.



> Yes you have. So what? I have also stated that this is a tried and tested method that has worked in the past and so could be expected to work again.


You must be an economic genius then as experts can't agree despite having the same and more information than you probably have.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Just as I expect you to belittle the fact things are being done as it doesn't suit your discussion point.


My stating that it is not sufficient that a single two billion being saved out of a 25 billion year on year on year tax evasion is not belittling what is being done. It is stating the problem accurately instead of trying to pretend that the nice government is trying to recoup everything, which is what you are doing.

And actually it suits my discussion point perfectly that out of 25 billion year after year after year of corporate tax evasion, all that has been recouped so far is 2 billion, whilst at the same time 18 billion is planned to be taken away from the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. 
Welfare reform: 'most radical shake-up for 60 years' | Politics | The Guardian

And, btw, you haven't yet produced any references for your claim that 2 billion hs been recouped. The Barclays bank (if indeed it was Barclays bank) closed loopholes saved 500 million - not 2 billion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/28/treasury-closes-barclays-tax-schemes



Goblin said:


> You must be an economic genius then as experts can't agree despite having the same and more information than you probably have.


Some economists say it is the best way forward and some don't. I happen to agree with those who do because history has shown us that it does work.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i didnt say it was ok, i said they had the option to do that


You have no option but to let your kids run about to keep warm? Well you could always cancel your internet and stick that money on the electric and keep your kids warm


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

harley bear said:


> You have no option but to let your kids run about to keep warm? Well you could always cancel your internet and stick that money on the electric and keep your kids warm


I think this is harsh, seriously low blow :/

Someone who is paying for internet and phone probably isn't letting their kids go cold and hungry,

There are food banks have reported a growing number of people needing food parcels are in full time employment...


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Changes said:


> I think this is harsh, seriously low blow :/
> 
> Someone who is paying for internet and phone probably isn't letting their kids go cold and hungry,
> 
> There are food banks have reported a growing number of people needing food parcels are in full time employment...


i dont think so. she said her kids have to run around to keep warm because she cant afford to keep her house warm yet shes sat on the internet? i feel for the kids.


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

Hypothetically, if people were offered the choice between moving to a place with the allocated number of bedrooms or receiving less benefit (and if the council couldn't find them a place then they don't receive less until the council can produce something) then would you still object to this?

Let's say it was done in the interests of keeping a 'minimum standard' that protects those who need the system, but encourages those who flout it to get into work, rather than for deficit reasons.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

harley bear said:


> i dont think so. she said her kids have to run around to keep warm because she cant afford to keep her house warm yet shes sat on the internet? i feel for the kids.


I went back and read all her posts can you link me to the one in question please 

Not disputing that she said it, but I just couldn't find it, Tink seems to be putting herself into a position of being a victim you shouldn't let that affect you lovely xx


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

K337 said:


> Hypothetically, if people were offered the choice between moving to a place with the allocated number of bedrooms or receiving less benefit (and if the council couldn't find them a place then they don't receive less until the council can produce something) then would you still object to this?
> 
> Let's say it was done in the interests of keeping a 'minimum standard' that protects those who need the system, but encourages those who flout it to get into work, rather than for deficit reasons.


*My main objection is, that by screwing those with the least they are not getting an option. Basicly the government might as well say, pay up or get out.But they are dressing it up as if they are going to get loads of properties emptied,and raise more money.
Bottom line is, imo..This move will not make any difference in the right places.*


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

harley bear said:


> You have no option but to let your kids run about to keep warm? Well you could always cancel your internet and stick that money on the electric and keep your kids warm


i don't think tink meant things in that sense , i think she was trying to say , in not so many words small kids never keep themselves still and don't always feel the cold whereas she can't move a lot and has to put layers on to keep herself warm 
she wasn't literally saying her kids have to run round and keep warm because she can't afford to put the heating on , if you read through some previous posts things point towards she quite possibly don't have children. if she's not a parent she couldn't even possibly begin to understand how all that sounded to a parent.



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> and yes kids can run round to keep warm as well i as putting on layers





tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ok
> 
> we struggle to put food on the table, we cant afford eating, kids can run around to keep warm, i cant


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

diablo said:


> i don't think tink meant things in that sense , i think she was trying to say , in not so many words small kids never keep themselves still and don't always feel the cold whereas she can't move a lot and has to put layers on to keep herself warm
> she wasn't literally saying her kids have to run round and keep warm because she can't afford to put the heating on , if you read through some previous posts things point towards she quite possibly don't have children. if she's not a parent she couldn't even possibly begin to understand how all that sounded to a parent.


Agree with ^^ this.... Im not sure tink actually has kids. It was just a comment that kids in general can run about to keep warm and so heating is more important to those with disability than families with kids.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

grumpy goby said:


> Agree with ^^ this.... Im not sure tink actually has kids. It was just a comment that kids in general can run about to keep warm and so heating is more important to those with disability than families with kids.


I think heating is important for everyone, equally x


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

grumpy goby said:


> Agree with ^^ this.... Im not sure tink actually has kids. It was just a comment that kids in general can run about to keep warm and so heating is more important to those with disability than families with kids.


Heating is important for everyone I would of thought. Hypothermia can set in no matter the age. Children, toddlers and babies are just as vulnerable, if not more so because they lose body heat very very quickly and babies even more so, they can't run around can they? And you can't expect children to run around all the time can you?..... And it's better for a baby to be in a warm room with few layers, than in a cold room all wrapped up...


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> because some are suffering more than others, why cant you see that
> 
> you're suffering is only having a take away once a month and not buying new clothes for a year
> 
> ...


A lot of working families can only afford one meal a day. They are out working their a*ses off only to have less than a lot of people on benefits.

Life is cr*p for a lot of people in this country. Everyone (unless you are super rich) is penalised one way or another.

Just think about all the poor homeless people. They cant afford one meal a week. How can they ever get out of that situation. They have NO choices.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Please can we keep this on topic..Thank you.*


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

The point I made regarding homeless people was on topic.

I bet they wish all they had to worry about was bedroom tax. They'd be grateful for a roof over their heads not how many spare bedrooms they need.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goldstar said:


> The point I made regarding homeless people was on topic.
> 
> I bet they wish all they had to worry about was bedroom tax. They'd be grateful for a roof over their heads not how many spare bedrooms they need.


*What do you honestly believe the government will achieve by doing this, apart from taking money from those that don't have it?*


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *What do you honestly believe the government will achieve by doing this, apart from taking money from those that don't have it?*


I have no idea what they hope to achieve. I'm under no illusion that its for the good of the people believe me.

However there are worse things in life other than paying a bit towards your rent. They have a choice to move to a smaller property, probably via exchange.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goldstar said:


> I have no idea what they hope to achieve. I'm under no illusion that its for the good of the people believe me.
> 
> However there are worse things in life other than paying a bit towards your rent. They have a choice to move to a smaller property, probably via exchange.


*If that is your honest answer then i feel sorry for you.
" A bit " towards this is a big chunk of what some are getting.Try taking £16 per week and living on the rest.:nono:
This government is getting away with murder, literary and nobody cares until its them.*


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Goldstar said:


> I have no idea what they hope to achieve. I'm under no illusion that its for the good of the people believe me.
> 
> However there are worse things in life other than paying a bit towards your rent. They have a choice to move to a smaller property, probably via exchange.


I spoke to my housing officer last week and he told me that they would be unable to downsize most people who will be affected by these changes, he also told me that the majority would have to move into private accommodation which charge more expensive rents, the people in private rented accommodation will not be affected by the increase in payments so the outcome would go like this

Housing association rent for three bed property (in my area) £90 per week contribution towards rent for those on housing benefit 14% ROUGHLY £13 from people who's income is JSA £64 take £13 = £51 to live on pay bills and food etc.

Now let's look at the local private rents one bed property cheapest I could find = £450 pcm = £103 per week hosing benefit will be paid in full

THERE IS NO SENSE IN THIS MODEL, it will actually cost more in housing benefit.



JANICE199 said:


> *If that is your honest answer then i feel sorry for you.
> " A bit " towards this is a big chunk of what some are getting.Try taking £16 per week and living on the rest.:nono:
> This government is getting away with murder, literary and nobody cares until its them.*


It is outrageous what the government are doing, but unless we wake everyone up and motivate them to take control of the financial systems nothing will change


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *If that is your honest answer then i feel sorry for you.
> " A bit " towards this is a big chunk of what some are getting.Try taking £16 per week and living on the rest.:nono:
> This government is getting away with murder, literary and nobody cares until its them.*


It is me. My only form of heating this winter is hot water bottles. At the moment we pay £30 a week towards our rent, after water rates and electric we have about £20 a week for food. OH and I have applied for every possible job. 
I'm going to university in March to study nursing. I am doing everything I can to get us out of this mess, as is my OH.

We have lived with nothing, literally.

Before its mentioned, I have unlimited internet on my phone for £10 a month which we need to put on to search for jobs (which we share btw).

I am grateful for having a home, for being able to eat and to have the opportunity to change my life.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goldstar said:


> It is me. My only form of heating this winter is hot water bottles. At the moment we pay £30 a week towards our rent, after water rates and electric we have about £20 a week for food. OH and I have applied for every possible job.
> I'm going to university in March to study nursing. I am doing everything I can to get us out of this mess, as is my OH.
> 
> We have lived with nothing, literally.
> ...


*With respect, have you any idea how many would love that £20 for food?
This is what makes me so angry, ( not you ). People really need to know that not everyone is out for something for nothing.*


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *With respect, have you any idea how many would love that £20 for food?
> This is what makes me so angry, ( not you ). People really need to know that not everyone is out for something for nothing.*


I see your point completely. That's why I said I bet all those homeless people would love a roof over their head even considering they might have to pay towards their rent.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goldstar said:


> I bet they wish all they had to worry about was bedroom tax. They'd be grateful for a roof over their heads not how many spare bedrooms they need.


But taxing someone who has no money to pay the extra tax does what? It means the person can no longer pay the rent. What happens if you can no longer pay the rent? You are evicted. What happens if you are evicted? You are homeless. Using the plight of homelss people to defend a policy that could ultimately create more homeless people does not make sense.



Changes said:


> I spoke to my housing officer last week and he told me that they would be unable to downsize most people who will be affected by these changes, he also told me that the majority would have to move into private accommodation which charge more expensive rents, the people in private rented accommodation will not be affected by the increase in payments so the outcome would go like this
> 
> Housing association rent for three bed property (in my area) £90 per week contribution towards rent for those on housing benefit 14% ROUGHLY £13 from people who's income is JSA £64 take £13 = £51 to live on pay bills and food etc.
> 
> ...


It's ludicrous, isn't it? It makes no financial sense whatsoever - so what we need to ask oursleves is WHY the government are doing this, if it's going to cost more money. Some reasons spring immediately to mind:

1. They are totally inept and couldn't run the proverbial booze up in a brewery, let alone run the counnrty

2. They get the sheep infighting amongst themselves so that they don't notice what's really going on (and if this forum is anything to go by they've succeeded in doing that in spades  )

3. They are paying lip-service to what people want - ie stopping the benefit cheats - in order to raise their popularity

4. They want to get people out of council houses so that they can sell them off to their business cronies who will then be able to charge much higher rents.

I'm sure others will be able to think of more.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> But taxing someone who has no money to pay the extra tax does what? It means the person can no longer pay the rent. What happens if you can no longer pay the rent? You are evicted. What happens if you are evicted? You are homeless. Using the plight of homelss people to defend a policy that could ultimately create more homeless people does not make sense.
> 
> It's ludicrous, isn't it? It makes no financial sense whatsoever - so what we need to ask oursleves is WHY the government are doing this, if it's going to cost more money. Some reasons spring immediately to mind:
> 
> ...


I am not allowed to rep you again lol but I would...

They are doing everything they can to make everyone fight with each other, so that no one sees the truth :/

It is like the X Factor, same every year, same format same personalities same scandals but no one questions it, they just fight over who didn't or did get kicked out.

No one questions the motives of the people that are really in control, too busy being side tracked to even notice that what they see is not what is

Who is actually in control of this county? Answers on an postcard please lol

X


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

MissShelley said:


> Heating is important for everyone I would of thought. Hypothermia can set in no matter the age. Children, toddlers and babies are just as vulnerable, if not more so because they lose body heat very very quickly and babies even more so, they can't run around can they? And you can't expect children to run around all the time can you?..... And it's better for a baby to be in a warm room with few layers, than in a cold room all wrapped up...


I agree. It wasnt my opinion, i was just explaining another persons position. If u look back i disagreed


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

harley bear said:


> You have no option but to let your kids run about to keep warm? Well you could always cancel your internet and stick that money on the electric and keep your kids warm


christ can you not read

i dont have kids, i was talking in general 



diablo said:


> i don't think tink meant things in that sense , i think she was trying to say , in not so many words small kids never keep themselves still and don't always feel the cold whereas she can't move a lot and has to put layers on to keep herself warm
> .


this



grumpy goby said:


> Agree with ^^ this.... Im not sure tink actually has kids. It was just a comment that kids in general can run about to keep warm and so heating is more important to those with disability than families with kids.


and this

the point im trying to make is

people who are able bodied have other options when it comes to keeping warm


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

well this is not good news

London boroughs plan housing for homeless families outside the capital | Society | The Guardian


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Changes said:


> well this is not good news
> 
> London boroughs plan housing for homeless families outside the capital | Society | The Guardian


*Absolutely disgusting imo.*


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

While I agree that it's not ideal, the housing benefit cap for London is £1600 per month. That means that someone on benefits also claiming housing benefits is being housed at the cost of nealy £20,000 per year. This simply cannot be sustained.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> While I agree that it's not ideal, the housing benefit cap for London is £1600 per month. That means that someone on benefits also claiming housing benefits is being housed at the cost of nealy £20,000 per year. This simply cannot be sustained.


100 percent agree with this

why should the tax payer pay that much for someone on benefits, its a disgrace


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Absolutely disgusting imo.*


Mmmm your theory not so far fetched is it Jan?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

northnsouth said:


> Mmmm your theory not so far fetched is it Jan?


*When i saw this, that's exactly what i said to my hubby.People really do need to wise up and think outside of the box.*


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

I'll admit I am surprised that this is happening in some boroughs, but in Kensington and Chelsea (or Westminster) I'm more surprised that anyone can live there on benefits in the first place. Have property prices really soared that much in the outer boroughs? I would have thought the ends of Brent, Waltham Forest, Dagenham, Hackney etc would still be 'affordable'.

Next step:
Do you think they will bulldoze all the estates and put up private housing? 
Or just fix up the interiors a little and sell them off?


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/fu...ousing-estates-for-demolition-82029-31762925/

Bulldoze in this case...


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

K337 said:


> http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/fu...ousing-estates-for-demolition-82029-31762925/
> 
> Bulldoze in this case...


*Again it might sound far fetched, but i believe they want only " posh" houses in London. So if its an eyesore to the rich they will get rid.
Reading that made my stomach turn,people have lived there for over 40 years.
They forget that years ago when a lot of people moved into council places in London,nobody else wanted them.unlike today.
Next thing i think they will be doing is building more high rise blocks of flats like they did in the 50/60's..But hey, the bulldozed most of those.
They are going around in circles like a load of headless chickens.*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *If that is your honest answer then i feel sorry for you.
> " A bit " towards this is a big chunk of what some are getting.Try taking £16 per week and living on the rest.:nono:
> This government is getting away with murder, literary and nobody cares until its them.*


Spot on, the government are using divide & rule tactics, playing the 'im alright Jacks' against the rest, under the guise of reforming the welfare system when in actual fact they are destroying it. I/you may not need it now but one day we might, well tough, it will be gone...along with the NHS


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Spot on, the government are using divide & rule tactics, playing the 'im alright Jacks' against the rest, under the guise of reforming the welfare system when in actual fact they are destroying it. I/you may not need it now but one day we might, well tough, it will be gone...along with the NHS


*People need to remember the golden rule.
"United we stand, divided we fall."
And i for one don't/ won't give in to the likes of Cameron.*


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Again it might sound far fetched, but i believe they want only " posh" houses in London. So if its an eyesore to the rich they will get rid.
> Reading that made my stomach turn,people have lived there for over 40 years.
> They forget that years ago when a lot of people moved into council places in London,nobody else wanted them.unlike today.
> Next thing i think they will be doing is building more high rise blocks of flats like they did in the 50/60's..But hey, the bulldozed most of those.
> They are going around in circles like a load of headless chickens.*


Maybe I have it wrong, but I suspect that eyesore or not, its more about the money. This is why I find it hard to believe about further afield hamlets/boroughs because I didn't think the rent had raised that much or that they were 'desirable' areas. I could easily be wrong. I freely admit to not investigating the stats compared to Kent, Hampshire, Windsor etc. Nor do I know much about the desirability.

At the same time, I've seen firsthand the people that are ready to relocate (across Europe and further afield) to avoid higher taxes and the like. So I don't think it's as simple as just getting the rich to contribute more or spending more. Personally I don't think that social/benefit housing should be for life and I value some of the reasons behind relocation and downsizing. I don't think those who need it should be the victims of the budget, but I also agree with a 'minimum standard' and making the benefits route a tedious system, as I've also seen those who are deemed to 'just' be on the other side disadvantaged. Realistically there is no real way to stop bludgers in this day and age. I'd love for someone to come up with the ideal solution which lets those who are in need to claim while preventing those who are not, but I just don't see it as likely. And I hate to see those who give it a fair go penalized or worse off than those who don't.

So what are people supposed to think? It has been alluded to as being 'sheep' and everyone in-fighting. I can respect the opinion, as it has merit, but there is no easy solution. Unless rich people suddenly shy away from commercialism I don't see them staying in the UK with reforms that prevent them from earning and getting their x per hour. To a certain extent I agree with that - a lot studied hard, worked hard and ultimately deserve the wealth recouped. It's a far cry from simple inheritance and at the end of the day it's what the majority are striving for - work hard and you will be rewarded. I actually like the merit behind the idea, but too much of the system seems to be against it.

Regarding housing benefits, I'd be all behind this if the councils could offer an alternative before penalizing. I think the onus should be on them to move people rather than charging, but I do agree that under-population is not desirable and should be penalized. I just wish it would come under general reforms instead of trying to address the deficit - because it won't necessarily.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> I work for a charity as an office manager - I am on minimum wage. My wages have been frozen from before this current government (apart from what they have do to by law to keep in line with MW).
> 
> I agree with so much you say (I think you and me have a problem with the way we communicate with each other  ) , but I do, and always will begrudge the taxes I pay going to people that _can_ work, but _choose_ not to.
> 
> ...


#Wow! you put that perfectly.
And suspect that most will agree with you 100%

It is though those maligera's that you speak that those people that are in genuine need of benifits are suffering!


----------



## jezzthomaz (Nov 6, 2012)

Does anyone know for what purpose the Government is doing so? 
People are struggling to gather a deposit and find a mortgage to get a home and occupy their family(a big family/ nuclear family). Especially the first time property buyer will be suffering much under this act. They will be waiting for years to own a property and after getting a two bed/ three bed property affordable to them(to occupy their large family) this curse is over them.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

jezzthomaz said:


> Does anyone know for what purpose the Government is doing so?
> People are struggling to gather a deposit and find a mortgage to get a home and occupy their family(a big family/ nuclear family). Especially the first time property buyer will be suffering much under this act. They will be waiting for years to own a property and after getting a two bed/ three bed property affordable to them(to occupy their large family) this curse is over them.


*Firstly they are doing it because this government like to hit the poorest.
Secondly this only applies to houses owned by councils or housing associations.*


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

Janice, only read the first few pages, haven't replied to this at all, so i'll write my reply then attempt to catch up!

Me and my husband lived in a 3 bedroom house. Large back garden. 

We had my stepsons stay over every weekend and more often than not, during the week. But we weren't down as their main carer, their mum was. 

The council got in touch with us and told us they wanted to downsize us to a one bedroom flat. Now, the flats they wanted us in, wouldn't have fit our belongings in, let alone the dogs, us and two children. 

We spoke to them about the kids and i asked them, where am i expected to sort out for a 5 year old and a 9 year old to sleep. Their reply 'get a sofa bed'. Now we were on bad terms with their mum. If we went through with that, he would have aid we have no room for them, there not stopping over, therefore stopping my husband from spending time with his sons. 

within a few weeks i'd moved into private rented (2 bedroom) that extra bedroom i now pay £60 a month for.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

RockRomantic said:


> Janice, only read the first few pages, haven't replied to this at all, so i'll write my reply then attempt to catch up!
> 
> Me and my husband lived in a 3 bedroom house. Large back garden.
> 
> ...


*Why have they asked you to move now? My understanding was, this isn't coming into force until next April.
As for them telling people they should use sofa beds, this apparently£32 per week?*


----------

