Dan Gliballs
Well-Known Member
Time to bend over and grab your ankles!
Time to bend over and grab your ankles!
Time to bend over and grab your ankles!
Just remember who it was who got us here.... One pace forward Messrs Blair & Brown and your happy cohorts.
Why are we still paying for Teflon Tony's security when he is lecturing to make money, surely if he is being paid he can pay for his own CP?
Unfortunately my work place is full of left wing ****s who've never experienced life outside of education and would happily **** our country away to all the lazy parasites who consider it their right for us to keep them in the luxury that they've grown used to. I just couldn't believe my ears when a group today exclaimed how awful it was that housing benefits were being capped at £400 per week!
£400 per week - who the f**k is entitled to housing benefit of at least £1600 per month?
Unfortunately my work place is full of left wing ****s who've never experienced life outside of education and would happily **** our country away to all the lazy parasites who consider it their right for us to keep them in the luxury that they've grown used to. I just couldn't believe my ears when a group today exclaimed how awful it was that housing benefits were being capped at £400 per week!
£400 per week - who the f**k is entitled to housing benefit of at least £1600 per month?
I know what you mean scotsgun but to balance it just a little it does depend on what part of the country you are in. My daughter lives in London in a Housing Assoc. one bed flat and her rent is £105 per week. She is lucky enough to have a job (unlike I was at her age in Paisley before I moved south --- yep - for work). Given that housing assoc rents are always cheaper than private landlords and the shortage of public sector housing it is not difficult to see how a family with 2 or 3 children could have rent approaching £400 per week. I agree with the cap as necessary but wonder how much it will actually save. If you are under 25 and privately renting they will only pay towards you renting a room in a house, in other cases they have maximums they will pay so if you had a landlord who was charging you £3000 a month for a 3 bed house where the market rent was £500 then HB would set the bar at £500 and the claimant would either have to move or else find the rest of the rent elsewhere.
The cases where some money may be saved is where the council is obligated to house a large family but does not have any available houses large enough to do so and are forced into privately renting as a council cannot house a family in overly cramped conditions. I suspect some money may be saved here - although the councils will still have the obligation to house large families in suitable accommodation so they may still have to provide the housing but not be able to pass the charges onto the family. There we would have a situation where the council would have to swallow the costs instead of HB so we may just be switching the costs to a different department.
At the end of the day I suspect this is a political statement designed to appeal to a section of voters and I would be interested to see the projected cost savings, the source of the data, and where it was thought the excess costs would be picked up with a net sum expected to be saved after taking the above into account.
What I find difficult to understand in all of this, is that we have to house people with large families, why we did not breed the buggers. I know there will be all sorts of reasons why contraception cannot be used ranging from religion to the prevailing wind but, if they are irresponsible enough to have children when they cannot afford them, what makes their irresponsibility our problem. I cannot recall any of this from when I was a kid, is the modern world really an improvement?
John
That's easy to answer...because it's the law! Under the Children's Act and subsequent acts it's illegal for a local authority to refuse housing or other benefits if there's a child who'll be effected. Go ahead and screw the system, get caught even but if you have a child the authority cannot withhold benefits. Common amongst those working whilst claiming.
There's a whole raft of legislation like each child over 7yrs is entitled to their own room. An entitlement which authorities are finding increasingly impossible to abide by due to housing shortages, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. Each kid is a gravy train lasting at least 16yrs.
Anyone who knows something about economics knows raising taxes will not bring any more money to the budget. I guess new chancellor never heard about the Laffer curve. Did he graduate from the communist's nest - London School of Economics ?