[mRebel]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

Could well be but that is irrelevant to the main point. The buy-to-letters (a lot of them people who had their pensions wrecked by Gordon) are simply responding to a business opportunity created by over generous welfare

Actually pensions were doing well under Gordon, until the banking bail out of 2008, since when they've fallen by an avarage of 27% Though Gordon and Alistair, not forgetting Lord Myners, did give Fred Goodwin a tax payer funded pension pot, estimated cost 20 million. Equivalent to quite a lot of Housing benefit claimants.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by nomad2king

If this is because of a rule introduced in April of this year, how come there are many similar cases long before then?

It was Labour that introduced LHA which allows people to move into an area and claim on the basis of the rent levels for that area. This is not about people who normally reside in that area and become unemployed, but people who deliberately move into an expensive area knowing that the rent will be covered as they have no intention of becoming employed, This also conveniently(and almost certainly coincidently) helps the owner of the vacant property. Why go to all the hassle and expense of moving? How do they find out about the vacant properties in an expensive area that are available for (certain) large families on benefits.

One of the last acts of Labour was to change LHA rules back to what a tenant actually pays. The coalition has imposed smaller limits on maximum payable, and limited claimants under 35 to the rent payable on shared accomadation, which is lower, usually much lower.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by Tassium

The people who cheer this modern nazism on deserve all they get.

And they will get it.

The looks on their face when healthcare is capped for the most needy, coming soon to the NHS.

Conservative think tank the Social Policy Unit has proposed something like that.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by paulschapman

I don't think Mrs T wanted to create a 'a haves versus have not society'. Indeed on election she quoted St Francis Prayer '. Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope’

She clearly failed in that or people would not want to dance a jig on her grave.

I think her true motives were more altruistic - to give those who normally would not have the chance of owning their own property, the chance to do so.

She also limited unemployment benefit for under 25's to two weeks unless they lived with their parents, leading to thousands of youngsters living on the streets. Her Housing Minister, George Gardner I think he was called, described the homeless as 'the people you trip over on your way to the opera.'
I'd take some convincing that any members of Mrs T's government had altruistic intent.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by Jay Bigz

What does the government class as low income these days then? Or should I say, low enough to receive any help??

I'd bet that nothing is available for someone earning 15k - which when you do the maths, for your outgoings, is pretty piss poor, and leaves the average bill payer with nothing to have a life with......

Apart from Tax Credits, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit in some cases, free prescriptions for toddlers, that's all I can think of offhand.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Wrong, the gap between rich and poor has got smaller:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/e...ich-got-poorer

Did you see this in the articles last paragraph?

“Britain was, on the Gini coefficient measure, as unequal when Labour left power as it had been in 1997 (and a lot more unequal than when the previous Labour government of Jim Callaghan was booted out in 1979).”

I haven't seen the IFS Report, but I wonder how much of the income fall in the wealthiest was caused by a fall in investement returns?

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant a massive social housing building programme. Fine with selling council houses to people who wanted them, but the money should have been used to replace them, thus constantly replenishing the rental sector.

Indeed. But the last Conservative government was determined to reduce public housing,(as is the Coaltion) and the last Labour government failed dismally to change that

[Raring_to_go]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant a massive social housing building programme. Fine with selling council houses to people who wanted them, but the money should have been used to replace them, thus constantly replenishing the rental sector.

It should be rather obvious, there is no point in introducing the right to buy and building more council houses.

[Phil 2804]

Originally Posted by Raring_to_go

It should be rather obvious, there is no point in introducing the right to buy and building more council houses.

Please explain the bizarre logic behind that? Especially given the enormous cost of the buy to let boom on public finances because of the lack of social housing for those not currently in a position to be able to rent or buy in the private sector?

The outcome of your logic is to make hundreds of thousands of people homeless and to create a society where the poor are left to fend for themselves in a starve or turn to crime society.

Put the Batman comics away, Gotham City isn't supposed to be interpreted as a Utopian Paradise.

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by Raring_to_go

It should be rather obvious, there is no point in introducing the right to buy and building more council houses.

What is most obvious is that not building more council houses once the right to buy was introduced has led to the situation we now have in regards to the shortage of council/ housing association homes across the country