Why have you compared the 53/week after rent/council tax to what somebody has said they have before rent/council tax?
Couldn't be you were trying to pretend that the 53/week was all a person was getting?
Sorry I wasn't trying to pretend anything but reading the OP again I realise I have made a mistake. I was under the impression the OP was saying he had £1102 left after he had paid rent and council tax.
Still I assume he means the £1102 is shared equally between himself and the person he lives with which makes his share of the payments the same as what most working people in rented housing association accommodation will pay so as I have said maybe they would be better off living in a council/housing association house.
WHAT?? Leave benefits alone? Why should I, I pay my bloody taxes honestly like the next person. I don't see how someone who is in receipt of DLA or another benefit should be able to get a nice car oh and a nice council property subsidised by the state!
Its fairness, it has nothing to do with my wages.....this is generally the answer given by those in receipt of substantial help from the state. So frankly telling me to get a wage rise is codswallop when in fact there should be more readily available help to those in work, help them save for a deposit. Rent a home affordably.
For the record DLA doesn't get you a car it's mobility allowance and you have the choice of recieving money however it is or not having the money and having a car.
BEFORE you throw a wobbly about that, they dont get free petrol or insurance, they still have to pay for those. As you know petrol isn't cheap so rather than swaning about having lovely days out etc they are having to pay to fill the tank out of the remainder of their benefit.
Too many people believe what they hear or read in the paper and then start going into one without thinking about the reality.
Sky TV. Who says that people on benefits have the full package and not the cheaapest package? How do people know how they afford it and what cost cutting measures they make to pay for it?
For example You can pay for brand name t-bags guessing £3.00 for 180 bags or you can buy sainsbury's basic 35p for 80 bags. Spend 90p and you have 240 bags and you have saved £2 towards the cost of Sky already.
People on benefits are really good at budgeting, I am because I had to learn to be.
FACT. I can pay £4 for some meat and then but veg etc or I can go to a pub and but something in there for the same price or cheaper all in and have someone cook the bloody thing for me.
I notice that the OP in their list said
Factor in pet related costs for another £50 a month.
If you you are so hard up get rid of the pets, they are a luxury. Yes you and the person you live with will miss the pet, but you'll both get rid of it. Of course you are going to say why should I etc. And you are right, but you can't complain being so hard up and struggling when you have places you can make cuts.
The difference of £205 per month automatically goes down by 25% straight away.
You and/or the person you live with have chosen to have pets that eat into your finances. It's not the people on benefits fault, it's not the left's fault and it's not the government's fault. It was yours or the person you live with's decision.
The basic thing like a phone line and broadband are not basic things they are classed as lifestyle choices and personal choices. Fact you do not need a phone line and broadband to live. If you odn't have it you won't die. So they can go as well making a saving of £80 for the month. That is about 40% of your over spend taken care of.
The reality of life is most people don't care about people on benefits and that is fine, that is their choice, what they really struggle with is virtually all of the people on benefits don't give a flying you know what about people with jobs. Isn't it strange how there are so many threads on different forums and lots of people on phone-ins etc telling people on benefits how they should live their lives and what they should spend their money on etc but not vice versa,
Am I in the wrong for telling you the OP to get rid of their phone line, broadband and pets? Of course I am what he/she does with their money and how they live is none of my business but equally it's none of their business how people on benefits live and spend their money.
To all the people that say "I would be better off if I quit my job and claim benefits!"..... Then do it then! People on benefits really don't give a crap what you do. They are too busy trying to get through their own lives without giving a toss about yours.
I'm sure many of those with disabilities or that are out of work and struggling to find employment that are having to pay the bedroom tax would love to swap places with you.
It is tough for a lot of people whether they are in work or not. The only people who are not having a hard time are the rich.
sorry no. thats not true. i'm not having a hard time. i'm far from being rich
Or because they know its unworkable as they know what housing stock they actually have. I doubt they would be making up figures to prove their point.. just because they didnt want the extra work somehow.
Why is it that social housing tenants are special?
That they should be given a property, for life, regardless of whether there is space surplus to requirements.
That when they die, their offspring should then get first refusal to keep living in that property.
That they should also get new kitchens, bathrooms, glazing, doors, roofing, guttering, etc periodically.
And that all of this should be paid for by you.
And if you try to take any of this from them? Well f**k you, you monster.
Another ill thought out post. People are not born social housing tenants, they choose to apply for social housing. They need not be unemployed and may or may not claim benefits. Any landlord public or private will undertake maintenance including refits from time to time, it's in their interest not the tenants.
Why is it that social housing tenants are special?
That they should be given a property, for life, regardless of whether there is space surplus to requirements.
That when they die, their offspring should then get first refusal to keep living in that property.
That they should also get new kitchens, bathrooms, glazing, doors, roofing, guttering, etc periodically.
And that all of this should be paid for by you.
And if you try to take any of this from them? Well f**k you, you monster.
No one is refusing to move, just no were to move to, houses dont just get pasted down like that, kitchens, bathrooms, glazing doors, roofing, guttering are iust like a private landlord modinsing there propertys and rent payment cover this and grants from the EU to bring them up to a decent standed, any thing else
Maybe because a wife has suddenly lost her husband and has to bring up her kids alone. Maybe the Government has caused mass unemployment and a tennant is finding it hard to get back into work. Maybe someone has been struck down with cancer or some other disease or illness and cant work anymore. Maybe parents have just lost their son/daughter in an overseas war or in a car crash and now have a spare room. Maybe someone suffering some form of depression and cant step foot outside the house. Theres lots of reasons really but let me guess your alright Jack.
No one is refusing to move, just no were to move to, houses dont just get pasted down like that, kitchens, bathrooms, glazing doors, roofing, guttering are iust like a private landlord modinsing there propertys and rent payment cover this and grants from the EU to bring them up to a decent standed, any thing else
up to now, people near me have refused to move. ive been accused of lying on here , or inventive, but the people i mention are real.
mrs A. she has a grown up family. she has a 4 bedroomed council house which she shares with her husband and one unemployed son. local council offers of a two bedroom flat have been declined.
across the road from me is a retired couple in a three bed semi. councils have offered them a smaller place. they can have smaller house with a garden or a flat. this couple has declined the offers because they want their spare rooms for their son when he visits. these two examples are both retired people so are exempt from HB reductions. so, my point is, that there are places to move to. and if a young overcrowded family moves into a 3 bed house , their small flat will be available for others who have moved out of their 3 bed house. easy eh?
up to now, people near me have refused to move. ive been accused of lying on here , or inventive, but the people i mention are real.
mrs A. she has a grown up family. she has a 4 bedroomed council house which she shares with her husband and one unemployed son. local council offers of a two bedroom flat have been declined.
across the road from me is a retired couple in a three bed semi. councils have offered them a smaller place. they can have smaller house with a garden or a flat. this couple has declined the offers because they want their spare rooms for their son when he visits. these two examples are both retired people so are exempt from HB reductions. so, my point is, that there are places to move to. and if a young overcrowded family moves into a 3 bed house , their small flat will be available for others who have moved out of their 3 bed house. easy eh?
Yes but your going on about a couple of people, that are now paying for them bedrooms. This is the bigger picture Responses from 37 authorities across Britain revealed 96,041 households faced losing benefit but there were only 3,688 smaller homes available.As you say the people that you talk about are exempt thats the goverments doing not other people who this is effecting
up to now, people near me have refused to move. ive been accused of lying on here , or inventive, but the people i mention are real.
mrs A. she has a grown up family. she has a 4 bedroomed council house which she shares with her husband and one unemployed son. local council offers of a two bedroom flat have been declined.
across the road from me is a retired couple in a three bed semi. councils have offered them a smaller place. they can have smaller house with a garden or a flat. this couple has declined the offers because they want their spare rooms for their son when he visits. these two examples are both retired people so are exempt from HB reductions. so, my point is, that there are places to move to. and if a young overcrowded family moves into a 3 bed house , their small flat will be available for others who have moved out of their 3 bed house. easy eh?
Those retired couples would have paid rent enough to have bought those properties out right 3 times over, and surely have the same rights as a home owner. I dont see anything wrong with the council asking if they would be prepared to move to a smaller place but if they turn down that offer then thats an end to it. These people have paid thier rents and taxes throughout their lives. How about moving the Queen to a small flat in the Eastend.
up to now, people near me have refused to move. ive been accused of lying on here , or inventive, but the people i mention are real.
mrs A. she has a grown up family. she has a 4 bedroomed council house which she shares with her husband and one unemployed son. local council offers of a two bedroom flat have been declined.
across the road from me is a retired couple in a three bed semi. councils have offered them a smaller place. they can have smaller house with a garden or a flat. this couple has declined the offers because they want their spare rooms for their son when he visits. these two examples are both retired people so are exempt from HB reductions. so, my point is, that there are places to move to. and if a young overcrowded family moves into a 3 bed house , their small flat will be available for others who have moved out of their 3 bed house. easy eh?
However it doesnt always work like that.
One bedroomed council places are scarce.
So the families are more likely to be overcrowded in 2 bedroomed+ places. A couple in a 2 bedroomed place are classed as underoccupying. These people cant swap...as its no good moving a family from a 2 bedroomed to another 2 bedroomed. However there arent one bedroomed places available for the couple to move into, so they are penalised despite not being able to move, and despite it not helping anyone even if they did move.
Add to this..people who have their properties adapted for disabilities. They cant just exchange to any old property. It must meet their needs.
I see the people in your examples are pensioners. Pensioners are the most likely to have spare bedrooms. But they are exempt. The larger properties (3/4bedroomed+) are most likely to be underoccupied by them than anyone else.
All single people, and couples, even couples with one or two children..that I know live in 2 bedroomed places. Except for my mother who lives in a bedsit.
I live in social housing. I do have 3 bedrooms. I live with my partner and my baby girl..however my 3 children from a previous relationship stay with me on a weekend and in the school holidays, this is why I was given this property. However now I would also be classed as underoccupying..even though the room is in use for at least 2 nights a week. Joint custody was a good enough reason to give me a 3 bedroomed instead of a 2 bedroomed in the first place apparently. But it isnt now. so much for the government wanting families to stay together eh? Luckily I dont claim HB so this doesnt affect me at all though.
Those retired couples would have paid rent enough to have bought those properties out right 3 times over, and surely have the same rights as a home owner. I dont see anything wrong with the council asking if they would be prepared to move to a smaller place but if they turn down that offer then thats an end to it. These people have paid thier rents and taxes throughout their lives. How about moving the Queen to a small flat in the Eastend.
This is what people dont get, its not a council house. Its someone home this is why you get a secure tenancy so you can build up a nice HOME
It's correct that private rents are ridiculous compared to social housing rents. The problem with the OP is he/she thinks the answer is to increase social housing costs rather than reduce private ones.
As I understand it DLA has two components to it, the care component and the mobility component? Its the latter which I feel is unfair, fair craic if someone needs help i.e. at home washing up. But I don't see why the state should be subsidising personal cars. When people who aren't in receipt of DLA or the mobility component struggle run a home let alone a car.
If I didn't have DLA then I wouldn't have a job, simple as that. Without my Motabiliy car, I couldn't get to work, meaning I would be stuck on benefits.
So the families are more likely to be overcrowded in 2 bedroomed+ places. A couple in a 2 bedroomed place are classed as underoccupying. These people cant swap...as its no good moving a family from a 2 bedroomed to another 2 bedroomed. However there arent one bedroomed places available for the couple to move into, so they are penalised despite not being able to move, and despite it not helping anyone even if they did move.
Add to this..people who have their properties adapted for disabilities. They cant just exchange to any old property. It must meet their needs.
I see the people in your examples are pensioners. Pensioners are the most likely to have spare bedrooms. But they are exempt. The larger properties (3/4bedroomed+) are most likely to be underoccupied by them than anyone else.
All single people, and couples, even couples with one or two children..that I know live in 2 bedroomed places. Except for my mother who lives in a bedsit.
I live in social housing. I do have 3 bedrooms. I live with my partner and my baby girl..however my 3 children from a previous relationship stay with me on a weekend and in the school holidays, this is why I was given this property. However now I would also be classed as underoccupying..even though the room is in use for at least 2 nights a week. Joint custody was a good enough reason to give me a 3 bedroomed instead of a 2 bedroomed in the first place apparently. But it isnt now. so much for the government wanting families to stay together eh? Luckily I dont claim HB so this doesnt affect me at all though.
if a couple or single person gave up their 3 bed house, a family with 3 children could be moved out of their one ore two bedroom flat, thus creating an empty smaller flat. whats so difficult about that for anyone to understand?
if a couple or single person gave up their 3 bed house, a family with 3 children could be moved out of their one ore two bedroom flat, thus creating an empty smaller flat. whats so difficult about that for anyone to understand?
Because that not that many small flats, 500 people, in 2 bedroom flats 100 people in small flats need to move into 2 bedroom flats that is 400 small flats short
Comments
The maintenance loan barely covers the cost of accomodation nowadays
Sorry I wasn't trying to pretend anything but reading the OP again I realise I have made a mistake. I was under the impression the OP was saying he had £1102 left after he had paid rent and council tax.
Still I assume he means the £1102 is shared equally between himself and the person he lives with which makes his share of the payments the same as what most working people in rented housing association accommodation will pay so as I have said maybe they would be better off living in a council/housing association house.
For the record DLA doesn't get you a car it's mobility allowance and you have the choice of recieving money however it is or not having the money and having a car.
BEFORE you throw a wobbly about that, they dont get free petrol or insurance, they still have to pay for those. As you know petrol isn't cheap so rather than swaning about having lovely days out etc they are having to pay to fill the tank out of the remainder of their benefit.
Too many people believe what they hear or read in the paper and then start going into one without thinking about the reality.
Sky TV. Who says that people on benefits have the full package and not the cheaapest package? How do people know how they afford it and what cost cutting measures they make to pay for it?
For example You can pay for brand name t-bags guessing £3.00 for 180 bags or you can buy sainsbury's basic 35p for 80 bags. Spend 90p and you have 240 bags and you have saved £2 towards the cost of Sky already.
People on benefits are really good at budgeting, I am because I had to learn to be.
FACT. I can pay £4 for some meat and then but veg etc or I can go to a pub and but something in there for the same price or cheaper all in and have someone cook the bloody thing for me.
I notice that the OP in their list said
Factor in pet related costs for another £50 a month.
If you you are so hard up get rid of the pets, they are a luxury. Yes you and the person you live with will miss the pet, but you'll both get rid of it. Of course you are going to say why should I etc. And you are right, but you can't complain being so hard up and struggling when you have places you can make cuts.
The difference of £205 per month automatically goes down by 25% straight away.
You and/or the person you live with have chosen to have pets that eat into your finances. It's not the people on benefits fault, it's not the left's fault and it's not the government's fault. It was yours or the person you live with's decision.
The basic thing like a phone line and broadband are not basic things they are classed as lifestyle choices and personal choices. Fact you do not need a phone line and broadband to live. If you odn't have it you won't die. So they can go as well making a saving of £80 for the month. That is about 40% of your over spend taken care of.
The reality of life is most people don't care about people on benefits and that is fine, that is their choice, what they really struggle with is virtually all of the people on benefits don't give a flying you know what about people with jobs. Isn't it strange how there are so many threads on different forums and lots of people on phone-ins etc telling people on benefits how they should live their lives and what they should spend their money on etc but not vice versa,
Am I in the wrong for telling you the OP to get rid of their phone line, broadband and pets? Of course I am what he/she does with their money and how they live is none of my business but equally it's none of their business how people on benefits live and spend their money.
To all the people that say "I would be better off if I quit my job and claim benefits!"..... Then do it then! People on benefits really don't give a crap what you do. They are too busy trying to get through their own lives without giving a toss about yours.
That they should be given a property, for life, regardless of whether there is space surplus to requirements.
That when they die, their offspring should then get first refusal to keep living in that property.
That they should also get new kitchens, bathrooms, glazing, doors, roofing, guttering, etc periodically.
And that all of this should be paid for by you.
And if you try to take any of this from them? Well f**k you, you monster.
sorry no. thats not true. i'm not having a hard time. i'm far from being rich
Have you asked yourself why the councils and HAs are backing the tenents on this and are not backing the goverment
Because its creating a lot of work for them?
Leeches!
Or because they know its unworkable as they know what housing stock they actually have. I doubt they would be making up figures to prove their point.. just because they didnt want the extra work somehow.
Another ill thought out post. People are not born social housing tenants, they choose to apply for social housing. They need not be unemployed and may or may not claim benefits. Any landlord public or private will undertake maintenance including refits from time to time, it's in their interest not the tenants.
No one is refusing to move, just no were to move to, houses dont just get pasted down like that, kitchens, bathrooms, glazing doors, roofing, guttering are iust like a private landlord modinsing there propertys and rent payment cover this and grants from the EU to bring them up to a decent standed, any thing else
Why is it,, they cannot just find propertys
You can always ask for the information from them under the freedom of information act
They are special because they know better than to give money to a land lord so that they can make a profit.
They also just want a home to live in and not to make money from.
So instead of fighting to get rid of social housing you should fight to have more of it,
Maybe because a wife has suddenly lost her husband and has to bring up her kids alone. Maybe the Government has caused mass unemployment and a tennant is finding it hard to get back into work. Maybe someone has been struck down with cancer or some other disease or illness and cant work anymore. Maybe parents have just lost their son/daughter in an overseas war or in a car crash and now have a spare room. Maybe someone suffering some form of depression and cant step foot outside the house. Theres lots of reasons really but let me guess your alright Jack.
You're richer than a lot of people katy if you're not struggling. Many can't afford to put their heating on or eat nourishing meals.
up to now, people near me have refused to move. ive been accused of lying on here , or inventive, but the people i mention are real.
mrs A. she has a grown up family. she has a 4 bedroomed council house which she shares with her husband and one unemployed son. local council offers of a two bedroom flat have been declined.
across the road from me is a retired couple in a three bed semi. councils have offered them a smaller place. they can have smaller house with a garden or a flat. this couple has declined the offers because they want their spare rooms for their son when he visits. these two examples are both retired people so are exempt from HB reductions. so, my point is, that there are places to move to. and if a young overcrowded family moves into a 3 bed house , their small flat will be available for others who have moved out of their 3 bed house. easy eh?
Yes but your going on about a couple of people, that are now paying for them bedrooms. This is the bigger picture Responses from 37 authorities across Britain revealed 96,041 households faced losing benefit but there were only 3,688 smaller homes available.As you say the people that you talk about are exempt thats the goverments doing not other people who this is effecting
Those retired couples would have paid rent enough to have bought those properties out right 3 times over, and surely have the same rights as a home owner. I dont see anything wrong with the council asking if they would be prepared to move to a smaller place but if they turn down that offer then thats an end to it. These people have paid thier rents and taxes throughout their lives. How about moving the Queen to a small flat in the Eastend.
However it doesnt always work like that.
One bedroomed council places are scarce.
So the families are more likely to be overcrowded in 2 bedroomed+ places. A couple in a 2 bedroomed place are classed as underoccupying. These people cant swap...as its no good moving a family from a 2 bedroomed to another 2 bedroomed. However there arent one bedroomed places available for the couple to move into, so they are penalised despite not being able to move, and despite it not helping anyone even if they did move.
Add to this..people who have their properties adapted for disabilities. They cant just exchange to any old property. It must meet their needs.
I see the people in your examples are pensioners. Pensioners are the most likely to have spare bedrooms. But they are exempt. The larger properties (3/4bedroomed+) are most likely to be underoccupied by them than anyone else.
All single people, and couples, even couples with one or two children..that I know live in 2 bedroomed places. Except for my mother who lives in a bedsit.
I live in social housing. I do have 3 bedrooms. I live with my partner and my baby girl..however my 3 children from a previous relationship stay with me on a weekend and in the school holidays, this is why I was given this property. However now I would also be classed as underoccupying..even though the room is in use for at least 2 nights a week. Joint custody was a good enough reason to give me a 3 bedroomed instead of a 2 bedroomed in the first place apparently. But it isnt now. so much for the government wanting families to stay together eh? Luckily I dont claim HB so this doesnt affect me at all though.
This is what people dont get, its not a council house. Its someone home this is why you get a secure tenancy so you can build up a nice HOME
Because that not that many small flats, 500 people, in 2 bedroom flats 100 people in small flats need to move into 2 bedroom flats that is 400 small flats short