Dont cap my benefits.

[Gimlet]

....... I believe that you can have your mortgage interest paid for you, a reduction in council tax....

 

You're thinking of MPs.

 

 

 

For you to get the maximium pay outs you have to have nothing to start with.

 

Unless you're an MP, then its the other way round.

[goodo123]

Remembering that the program was about benefit caps and centered around London housing costs, perhaps we should remind ourselves that the root of the problem stems from the nonexistent council housing availability.

 

This appalling situation resulted from Mrs Thatchers government's criminal decision to sell off the council house stock on the cheap to the then tenants. We are now reaping the reward for that crackpot decision.

 

If council housing still existed, with tenants paying a fair means tested rent based on total household income, we would not be in a position where the private sector was profiteering from the tax payer.

 

Remember that the greatest proportion of benefit paid to those on the program last night was for housing costs.

There's plenty of cheap houses available, just the area they are in is far from desirable or the house is only a 2 bed. Instead of council buying these they choose to pay rent on mansions and new builds

[kdubya]

There's plenty of cheap houses available, just the area they are in is far from desirable or the house is only a 2 bed. Instead of council buying these they choose to pay rent on mansions and new builds

instead of saying that cheap housing is available in less"desirable" area's have a little think on why there is so little if any in the more "desirable" area's? that will be down to two things one being employment prospects for low earners,who are on the whole exploited by charlatan employers who are making profits on the backs of the taxpayer having to susidise their employee's, secondly and very much a fact, unscrupulous landlords who buy property solely to rent, which does 2 things in that it makes cheap housing unavailable and it inflates the rental price in the area of need, perhaps if we actually looked the rental charge allowed in a bit more detail and the actual fit to live in rules,then ****hole properties would not attract high rents to line the pockets of scumbag landlords with money you and I as taxpayers provide.

 

KW

[Fuji Shooter]

instead of saying that cheap housing is available in less"desirable" area's have a little think on why there is so little if any in the more "desirable" area's? that will be down to two things one being employment prospects for low earners,who are on the whole exploited by charlatan employers who are making profits on the backs of the taxpayer having to susidise their employee's, secondly and very much a fact, unscrupulous landlords who buy property solely to rent, which does 2 things in that it makes cheap housing unavailable and it inflates the rental price in the area of need, perhaps if we actually looked the rental charge allowed in a bit more detail and the actual fit to live in rules,then ****hole properties would not attract high rents to line the pockets of scumbag landlords with money you and I as taxpayers provide.

 

KW

 

KDUBYA for Housing Minister - Got my vote mate

[klatuveradanikto]

Kept flicking it on whilst I was watching the adoption prog on C4 or C5 and was amazed at the lady who was saying the 3 bed house in Luton was "****" as she put it.

 

Two choices in my view, take it or move back so Somolia.

[truflex]

Put the in cardboard boxes under a bridge.

[Fisherman Mike]

But anyone working doesn't have rent charged based on means testing - they live where and in what house size they're money allows them, including geographical challenges!

 

The issue is house pricing has gone up faster than incomes - it's not just a council house issue but why should some people be protected and others not? We should all share in how hard and challenging that is.

But we do.. we pay our taxes and rates so that the government and local authority can provide housing for those people on low income who cannot afford to rent.

 

The problem is that the population of Britain is growing organically at a faster rate than the housing authorities can keep up with and its not in the majority immigrants who are swelling the list.

 

Private rental accommodation and Local Authority rental accommodation are two completely different issues and the rental achieved by private landlords are down to market forces/supply and demand, irrespective of the geographical region or desirability.

[keg]

The other issue is that DSS now pay the renter their housing benefit so they can be "empowered" and learn to manage their money. Based on the number that are in areas with a friend who owns around 90 properties, it is not working. By the time he evicts them via the court and repairs the damage, he is seriously out of pocket.

 

Agree with Mike re market forces.

[kdubya]

The other issue is that DSS now pay the renter their housing benefit so they can be "empowered" and learn to manage their money. Based on the number that are in areas with a friend who owns around 90 properties, it is not working. By the time he evicts them via the court and repairs the damage, he is seriously out of pocket.

 

Agree with Mike re market forces.

If he was seriously out of pocket he would not do it, so that one is out of the window,unless of course his second name is Claus,this may surprise you but I rented a property for a number of years,and believe me apart from once tenant I never had a problem,trouble was I used to worry that everything was OK for the tenant, I kept the house in a state I would like it to be if I had to live in it, unlike some of the properties we saw in the program, I gave it up when the area was redeveloped,and as for the statement its not immigration that's causing the prob, it sure as hell is not helping,especially after seeing that net migration was underestimated in 2011 by 350 thousand! that's the population of a decent size town, and all will need housing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26972597

 

KW

[Gimlet]

 

The problem is that the population of Britain is growing organically at a faster rate than the housing authorities can keep up with and its not in the majority immigrants who are swelling the list.

 

 

 

A report just published by Migration Watch UK which has studied migration levels for the last twenty years has calculated that net immigration to Britain is forecast to remain at between 160,000 and 200,000 per year for the next five years. That takes into account the Governments proposed measures to limit immigration and it takes into account net emigration. So that's 160,000 - 200,000 year on year increase to the permanent population of Britain from legal immigration alone and does not include asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

That's a new city the size of York that must be built every single year just to house new arrivals before we even start housing our own population. Or a new home every seven minutes or an entire new Manchester every four years... Just to house immigrants. The legal ones...

Now tell me immigration is having no effect on housing. And before you say it, Migration Watch UK has nothing to do with Ukip or any other political party.

[aris]

Not to mention the wage deflation which will occur at the lower end - meaning even more befits needed.

[kdubya]

Not to mention the wage deflation which will occur at the lower end - meaning even more befits needed.

the real point of it.

 

KW

[Fisherman Mike]

If he was seriously out of pocket he would not do it, so that one is out of the window,unless of course his second name is Claus,this may surprise you but I rented a property for a number of years,and believe me apart from once tenant I never had a problem,trouble was I used to worry that everything was OK for the tenant, I kept the house in a state I would like it to be if I had to live in it, unlike some of the properties we saw in the program, I gave it up when the area was redeveloped,and as for the statement its not immigration that's causing the prob, it sure as hell is not helping,especially after seeing that net migration was underestimated in 2011 by 350 thousand! that's the population of a decent size town, and all will need housing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26972597

 

KW

I accept that but generally immigrant families will accept lesser accommodation than the native whining spongers who do have employment opportunity which would bring with it better housing but until now they have been better off on benefits and not wanting to work. Now the benefits have been stemmed the accommodation they have been provided with is no longer acceptable and they are starting to contact the Housing Associations, LA and Social Landlords complaining that their properties are nor fit for purpose because the benefit money they were spending on alcohol, fags and gambling has had to be redirected towards housing costs.

[Gimlet]

 

A report just published by Migration Watch UK which has studied migration levels for the last twenty years has calculated that net immigration to Britain is forecast to remain at between 160,000 and 200,000 per year for the next five years. That takes into account the Governments proposed measures to limit immigration and it takes into account net emigration. So that's 160,000 - 200,000 year on year increase to the permanent population of Britain from legal immigration alone and does not include asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

That's a new city the size of York that must be built every single year just to house new arrivals before we even start housing our own population. Or a new home every seven minutes or an entire new Manchester every four years... Just to house immigrants. The legal ones...

Now tell me immigration is having no effect on housing. And before you say it, Migration Watch UK has nothing to do with Ukip or any other political party.

 

 

Oh yes.. And Migration Watch don't take into account reproduction. Their figures are for new arrivals stepping onto tarmac. Immigrants, like the rest of us, like to have children, who will have automatic British citizenship for life even if their parents return home an hour after the birth.

I don't know how many children a million people are likely to produce in five years, but put them on the housing list as well.

[Paddy Galore!]

bloody marvellous!

[Fisherman Mike]

 

A report just published by Migration Watch UK which has studied migration levels for the last twenty years has calculated that net immigration to Britain is forecast to remain at between 160,000 and 200,000 per year for the next five years. That takes into account the Governments proposed measures to limit immigration and it takes into account net emigration. So that's 160,000 - 200,000 year on year increase to the permanent population of Britain from legal immigration alone and does not include asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

That's a new city the size of York that must be built every single year just to house new arrivals before we even start housing our own population. Or a new home every seven minutes or an entire new Manchester every four years... Just to house immigrants. The legal ones...

Now tell me immigration is having no effect on housing. And before you say it, Migration Watch UK has nothing to do with Ukip or any other political party.

Where did I say it wasn't. ?

[henry d]

Oh yes.. And Migration Watch don't take into account reproduction. Their figures are for new arrivals stepping onto tarmac. Immigrants, like the rest of us, like to have children, who will have automatic British citizenship for life even if their parents return home an hour after the birth.

I don't know how many children a million people are likely to produce in five years, but put them on the housing list as well.

They, as do the rest of us, reproduce to the point that maintain a reasonable chance that both ensures the survival of the minimum amount of people to conserve the family line. Not in a single generation but within 2 or 3.

The other thing you consistently fail to accept is the net gain that we get from the EU migrants in the UK

[Gimlet]

Where did I say it wasn't. ?

 

Here:

 

 

 

 

The problem is that the population of Britain is growing organically at a faster rate than the housing authorities can keep up with and its not in the majority immigrants who are swelling the list.

 

 

 

 

The Government's own figures for population increase for the year 2012 - and this is a figure even the BBC were prepared to broadcast - gave an overall net population increase of 300,000. Admittedly, since this figure is acceptable to the Left we may safely assume it is a serious underestimate. Nevertheless, it we take it as accurate then at the very least half and up to two thirds of the entire population increase for that year - and, it is therefore reasonable to assume, subsequent years - is made up from first generation immigration. Then factor in immigrant birthrates and a clear majority of overall net population increase is attributable solely to immigration. Which suggests your statement above is wishful thinking.

[Fisherman Mike]

 

Here:

 

 

 

 

The Government's own figures for population increase for the year 2012 - and this is a figure even the BBC were prepared to broadcast - gave an overall net population increase of 300,000. Admittedly, since this figure is acceptable to the Left we may safely assume it is a serious underestimate. Nevertheless, it we take it as accurate then at the very least half and up to two thirds of the entire population increase for that year - and, it is therefore reasonable to assume, subsequent years - is made up from first generation immigration. Then factor in immigrant birthrates and a clear majority of overall net population increase is attributable solely to immigration. Which suggests your statement above is wishful thinking.

Trouble is I am afraid Gimlet, you only read what you want to read and interpret it to suit your political stance. Immigrants of course put pressure on the housing availability lists but what I said was they were not in the majority..which is correct. The ONS figures suggest that the balance is approx. 75% native 25% migrant and the Housing corporation figures for new applications has this balance slightly more. However that's all academic, and being one yourself you will no doubt be familiar with the words of Disraeli... or was it Twain ? many scholars cant agree on this issue either.

[norfolk dumpling]

Anyone watch Gipsies on be benefits last night? Now that nearly got a foot throught the telly. Not their fault that we are such a soft touch but now we can all see why the government are toughening up on this!

[Dekers]

There is a real foot through the tele coming soon if its not already started.

 

http://www.channel5.com/shows/gypsies-on-benefits-proud/episodes/gypsies-on-benefits-proud

 

The program was obviously designed to show what a soft touch our system is...it worked, I just don't understand why we pay in these circumstances.

[overandunder2012]

The other issue is that DSS now pay the renter their housing benefit so they can be "empowered" and learn to manage their money. Based on the number that are in areas with a friend who owns around 90 properties, it is not working. By the time he evicts them via the court and repairs the damage, he is seriously out of pocket.

 

Agree with Mike re market forces.

unless the rent came direct to me id never rent to a claimant you would have to be an idiot

[Gimlet]

Trouble is I am afraid Gimlet, you only read what you want to read and interpret it to suit your political stance. Immigrants of course put pressure on the housing availability lists but what I said was they were not in the majority..which is correct. The ONS figures suggest that the balance is approx. 75% native 25% migrant and the Housing corporation figures for new applications has this balance slightly more. However that's all academic, and being one yourself you will no doubt be familiar with the words of Disraeli... or was it Twain ? many scholars cant agree on this issue either.

 

It all comes down to which set of statistics you believe. the Government is as schizophrenic as anyone else since at various times it seems happy to any set of statistics according to its purpose. Either way, the numbers for net immigration are not in doubt. So far as I can discover the ONS includes in its figures for indigenous population increase children born to first generation immigrants who have become British citizens, so the ratios they produce are disingenuous.

Anyway.. My political stance, insofar as I have one, is to challenge the juvenile liberal-left reductivism that uncontrolled immigration must be good because of its warm and fluffy connotations of multiculturalism and inclusiveness and opposition to it must be therefore be bad, neo-imperialist and tantamount to goose-stepping. But taking politics out of it, the point of this in a thread about Britain's welfare costs is that in a country of 700 people per square mile which is fast disappearing under a tide of concrete, where we are running out of space to bury the dead and grow food; a country reliant on imports for food and energy security, burdened with unpayable public debts and one of the most expensive, extensive and entrenched welfare systems in the western world, a creaking infrastructure, an out of control public health care bureaucracy and a woeful education system, is that having to build a new city the size of Manchester every four years purely to house immigrants and having to build it all on debt before we even start housing our own population might go some way to explaining why we have a housing shortage.

[kdubya]

They, as do the rest of us, reproduce to the point that maintain a reasonable chance that both ensures the survival of the minimum amount of people to conserve the family line. Not in a single generation but within 2 or 3.

The other thing you consistently fail to accept is the net gain that we get from the EU migrants in the UK

So is that why the chap from Palestine (and yes I do have some sympathy for his predicament)decided to have SEVEN whilst earning £150 a week? not one or two kids since his arrival nine years ago?but SEVEN christ they must have barely cleared the delivery table before they were at it again! I would suggest his aim was just like our own indigenous population in that seven brings more in than one, oh and of course HD those seven children are not classed as immigrants, so they dont count towards your equation of net gain, if they were and should be, your so called gain numbers would be well skewed.

 

KW

Edited April 12, 2014 by kdubya

[Gimlet]

They, as do the rest of us, reproduce to the point that maintain a reasonable chance that both ensures the survival of the minimum amount of people to conserve the family line. Not in a single generation but within 2 or 3.

The other thing you consistently fail to accept is the net gain that we get from the EU migrants in the UK

 

I consistently fail to accept it because I don't believe there is a net gain. If Britain, a country of 60 million people, cannot staff its own economy without help from abroad, there is clearly something very wrong with our socio/economic model. Importing huge waves of migration without reforming that model can do nothing but make things worse. Mass EU migration is not intended to promote economic advancement, it is intended to break down national identities preparatory to the establishment of a single European government.

And while I am asked to stretch my credulity to breaking point and since this is a thread about welfare and the fabric of society in general, permit me to request that you do the same. Mass immigration cuts both ways. It doesn't only effect the host country, it also effects the country of origin. In something of a stunt but one that bears thinking about, a Polish MP is to come to Britain to live as a low paid Polish immigrant to try and discover what it is about Britain that brings Poles here. His purpose is to identify the attractions Britain holds for Poles with a view to replicating them in Poland in the hope of persuading more of his countrymen to stay at home. I million, mostly young, Poles are living in Britain and many more have moved to other EU countries. For Poland, a country of 38 million, that represents a huge exodus which is having serious social and economic consequences for that country. That is equally true of developing countries beyond the EU, often economically chaotic and politically troubled, who are haemorrhaging their best and brightest - the very people they need most - to countries like Britain to paper over the gaping holes we have created for ourselves with our welfare society. As far as I can see there are no winners.