Bedroom tax causing agony for Dorset families

Bedroom  tax fears: Michael McManus, Justin Mayer, Tyler McGarvey, Sharon McManus and Rachael McGarvey

Bedroom tax fears: Michael McManus, Justin Mayer, Tyler McGarvey, Sharon McManus and Rachael McGarvey

First published in News
Last updated
Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

HUNDREDS of people across Dorset have been hit by a ‘harsh’ benefits cut over a year on from its introduction.

And around a quarter of those to have been affected by the Bedroom Tax are disabled, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

It comes amid growing calls for the welfare reform to be axed.

The introduction of the Bedroom Tax, which restricts housing benefit for those who are seen to have extra bedrooms, caused outrage when it came into effect in April last year, with critics claiming it targets the poorest people in society.

Campaigner Michael McManus organised protests outside the Weymouth and Portland Borough Council offices at North Quay as part of a national movement against the policy.

But Mr McManus said the fight isn’t over as many people are still challenging their benefits cuts.

He said: “I’m not surprised by the figures. I know a lot of people have been affected.”

Mr McManus set up a Facebook group last year which now has more than 450 members.

The forum is still active and he and friend Teresa Green post news of rulings on the Bedroom Tax from across the country and offer advice to people who have been affected.

He added: “A lot of the problem is that there hasn’t been a definition of what a ‘bedroom’ is. How big does it have to be? Why should you have to pay for a tiny box room that has never been used as a bedroom?

“It’s causing a lot of pain and anger.”

Former social inclusion spokesman for Weymouth and Portland Borough Council Colin Huckle called the tax a ‘harsh penal sanction’ that hits the most vulnerable people in the community.

Cllr Huckle said: “I can understand the need to encourage people to downsize to free up some of the accommodation with more bedrooms, which are urgently required, but I do not think that should be done through monetary penalties.

“It is a harsh penal sanction that hits poor people who are already on housing benefit and earning below a certain income.”

Councillor Ray Nowak, the borough council’s spokesperson for economic development, called for the legislation to be revoked.

He said: “The fact is that there just aren’t that many smaller properties for people to move into.

“It is truly horrendous, makes people worry that they are going to lose the roof over their heads and is a burden on housing providers.”

Exchange events for swapping properties

MUTUAL exchange events have led to four people swapping homes and moving to larger or smaller properties.
Sarah Durrans, Synergy Housing regional director, said: “These events help our customers and other social housing tenants to meet and find out if their homes are suitable to swap. They also give us, our fellow housing providers, local authorities and other organisations, a chance to talk to customers about their needs, advise them on their options if they’re looking to move to a smaller or larger property, and offer them any support or assistance they may require.”
Around 80 people attended two events in March and August last year, leading to the exchanges. Similar events will be held at Weymouth Pavilion on November 13.

'Id' rather die than leave my home'

A WEYMOUTH widow who has been hit by the Bedroom Tax said she would rather die than leave her home.
The woman, who is disabled and told her story to the Dorset Echo on condition of anonymity, has had her housing benefit docked by 25 per cent after her husband died and her son moved out.
She has lived in the four-bedroom housing association property since 2001 and tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on converting it to suit her needs.
She said: “My husband and I owned our own business and our own home.
“But when I had an accident and became disabled, we lost everything.
“My husband became my full-time carer.
“Then he was diagnosed with cancer and died 18 months ago.”
The couple knew about the impending introduction of the penalty and her husband worried what would happen.
She added: “It was really traumatic. He kept saying, ‘I can’t go because who’s going to look after you?’”
The house is classed as four-bedroomed although one spare room is permitted for an overnight carer and another measures just eight feet across.

She said: “I have appealed against the tax but it has been declined. I was told I would have to find the money to pay by cutting back on things or get out.
“I’ve been offered a one-bedroom flat but it has not been adapted to suit my disability.”
Her illness has left her barely able to stand.
She added: “I have no intention of leaving. This isn’t just a house, my husband made it a home.
“I am still finding presents that he hid for me before he died, for our anniversary and my birthday.
“He died in this house. I held him in my arms when he took his last breath.
“He is buried in the graveyard behind my house.
“My friends take me to visit but on my bad days when I can’t walk I can go to the bedroom which overlooks the graveyard and talk to him that way.
“I would rather die than leave my home.”

Lib Dems’ dramatic about turn

LIBERAL Democrats have dramatically withdrawn their support for the so-called bedroom tax, with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg claiming it is hitting the poorest in society.
He is pushing for changes to be made before the next election.
Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander has also said that significant changes were needed to the policy.
But they have faced accusations of hypocrisy for the U-turn.
An internal government review published this week showed almost 60 per cent of households affected by the housing benefit changes were in arrears as a result and a shortage of smaller properties meant only 4.5 per cent of tenants had been able to downsize to avoid it.
Lib Dem councillor and parliamentary candidate for West Dorset Ros Kayes welcomed Nick Clegg’s U-turn on the tax, saying: “It’s fabulous news and it is about time.
“I’ve been one of the people who have been  agitated by bedroom tax for the past two years.
“It hasn’t done what it was supposed to do.
“The problem is there are no alternative homes for people who have too many rooms, it’s an inconceivable concept.
“I’m surprised there’s not been any legal action taken by tenants against housing associations

FIGURES released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that 553 people in Weymouth and Portland and 689 in West Dorset have had their housing benefit cut since the introduction of the Bedroom Tax.
The cut is 14 per cent for those deemed to have one spare room and 25 per cent for those deemed to have two or more spare rooms.
In Weymouth and Portland, 455 people have had their benefit cut by 14 per cent and 98 have had a cut of 25 per cent.
Across West Dorset 559 have had a cut of 14 per cent and 130 have had a cut of 25 per cent.
In Weymouth and Portland, 6,059 people are receiving housing benefit. The figure for West Dorset is 6,092.
This means around one in ten housing benefit recipients in Weymouth and Portland, and one in eight in West Dorset, are affected by the Bedroom Tax.
In Weymouth, a two-bedroomed Synergy property is rented at an average of £89.25 per week, with a three-bedroom averaging £105.40 per week.
Synergy owns and manages 2,751 properties in Weymouth.

 

THE bedroom tax, or under-occupancy penalty, was brought in as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
It came into effect in April 2013 and restricts housing benefit to allow for one bedroom for each person or couple, with the exception of children under 16, who are expected to share, and where there is an overnight carer for a disabled person, who will be allowed an extra bedroom.
The change has been highly criticised by the Labour Party, but the Coalition believes the policy creates a fairer approach to benefits.
Despite being in place for almost a year, the tax remains controversial and campaigners recently lost a bid at the Court of Appeal to have the tax declared unlawful.
Judges did not accept the argument that the tax breaches Human Rights and common law because of its impact on vulnerable families.
Campaigners are now considering taking their battle to the Supreme Court.

 

Comments (107)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:17am Fri 18 Jul 14

ino69 says...

Oh FFS. Stop winging about getting stuff cheap or in many cases free. Try getting a two bedroom house for £386.75 or 3 bedroom for £456.73 a month if you are a normal hardworking person with no kids. No, I am not saying none of the people in these houses work. But the majority don't. Because you can't get any housing benefit at all if you earn your own money. And neither should you. I see no reason why I and other people should pay for someone else luxury lifestyle. If you own TV's, have sky, a games console (or in many cases 2 or 3), smartphones and tablets etc etc then you are doing just fine.
Oh FFS. Stop winging about getting stuff cheap or in many cases free. Try getting a two bedroom house for £386.75 or 3 bedroom for £456.73 a month if you are a normal hardworking person with no kids. No, I am not saying none of the people in these houses work. But the majority don't. Because you can't get any housing benefit at all if you earn your own money. And neither should you. I see no reason why I and other people should pay for someone else luxury lifestyle. If you own TV's, have sky, a games console (or in many cases 2 or 3), smartphones and tablets etc etc then you are doing just fine. ino69
  • Score: 98

8:30am Fri 18 Jul 14

K9 says...

To Rachel Stretton, senior reporter, Echo,

It is not a tax. It is certainly not a capitalised Bedroom Tax.
The BBC know this and in their impartiality headline it as "Lib Dems accused of 'hypocrisy' over bedroom benefit rules" and refer to it as "The changes, called the "bedroom tax" by critics but described by ministers as the removal of a "spare room subsidy"".

Regardless on one's political leanings, it's important that we can expect the facts to be *reported* by the Echo for us to make up our own minds. Otherwise, I may as well read some political blog that matches my own bias.
To Rachel Stretton, senior reporter, Echo, It is not a tax. It is certainly not a capitalised Bedroom Tax. The BBC know this and in their impartiality headline it as "Lib Dems accused of 'hypocrisy' over bedroom benefit rules" and refer to it as "The changes, called the "bedroom tax" by critics but described by ministers as the removal of a "spare room subsidy"". Regardless on one's political leanings, it's important that we can expect the facts to be *reported* by the Echo for us to make up our own minds. Otherwise, I may as well read some political blog that matches my own bias. K9
  • Score: 37

8:43am Fri 18 Jul 14

Bollard says...

Teresa Green? I think the Echo's been had here!
Teresa Green? I think the Echo's been had here! Bollard
  • Score: 20

8:44am Fri 18 Jul 14

satisfecho says...

An older lady near me recently moved on after many years living in a 'Social Housing' three bedroom house.

In moves a younger family with two kids. At least their making use of all three rooms, but what gets me was the 50" Plasma TV was on the wall first day, but curtains for kids room took two weeks. They can afford a boy-racer car as well as have money to dish on XYZ which has been delivered by numerous couriers since they have been there!
An older lady near me recently moved on after many years living in a 'Social Housing' three bedroom house. In moves a younger family with two kids. At least their making use of all three rooms, but what gets me was the 50" Plasma TV was on the wall first day, but curtains for kids room took two weeks. They can afford a boy-racer car as well as have money to dish on XYZ which has been delivered by numerous couriers since they have been there! satisfecho
  • Score: 43

8:58am Fri 18 Jul 14

7drawers says...

A family with 3daughters aged 15/14/13 in theory only need 2 bedrooms.. So they are downsized to such a house.. 1year later they are entitled to 3 bedrooms.. 1year later 4 bedrooms.... Are this family getting moved???
The housing stock it's available
A family with 3daughters aged 15/14/13 in theory only need 2 bedrooms.. So they are downsized to such a house.. 1year later they are entitled to 3 bedrooms.. 1year later 4 bedrooms.... Are this family getting moved??? The housing stock it's available 7drawers
  • Score: 6

9:18am Fri 18 Jul 14

jec2887 says...

I'm sorry but I live in a private rented house that me and my husband work hard for, that cost all most double compared to the council rate. My sons bed room is 8 feet across and it is a perfectly functioning bedroom!
If my landlord decided to raise my rent (whitch it more or less what "bedroom tax" is) and I couldn't afford it I'd have to find alterative place, whether I'd lived there for years or I had some sort of emotional attachments to the property it would be tough luck as it is NOT my house I DON'T own it, and as for there not being smaller property's to move in to!! Well I know people waiting to swap with 2 beds properties but cannot get anyone to swap with!
I'm sorry but I live in a private rented house that me and my husband work hard for, that cost all most double compared to the council rate. My sons bed room is 8 feet across and it is a perfectly functioning bedroom! If my landlord decided to raise my rent (whitch it more or less what "bedroom tax" is) and I couldn't afford it I'd have to find alterative place, whether I'd lived there for years or I had some sort of emotional attachments to the property it would be tough luck as it is NOT my house I DON'T own it, and as for there not being smaller property's to move in to!! Well I know people waiting to swap with 2 beds properties but cannot get anyone to swap with! jec2887
  • Score: 46

9:30am Fri 18 Jul 14

Fred Kite says...

So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent. Fred Kite
  • Score: -17

9:40am Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
[quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true. JamesYoung
  • Score: 24

9:47am Fri 18 Jul 14

leo210856 says...

Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
Fred

The Guinness Trust is a housing Association not a private landlord. In effect the same as Synergy

As for private landlords housing benefit is capped in line with something called Local Housing Allowance but the major difference is that the vast bulk of those that rent in the private sector don't have the same sort of long term protection afforded to those in social housing.
[quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]Fred The Guinness Trust is a housing Association not a private landlord. In effect the same as Synergy As for private landlords housing benefit is capped in line with something called Local Housing Allowance but the major difference is that the vast bulk of those that rent in the private sector don't have the same sort of long term protection afforded to those in social housing. leo210856
  • Score: 21

10:16am Fri 18 Jul 14

Fred Kite says...

The point I was making is Guinness are an agent and HRH the owner of the buildings
The point I was making is Guinness are an agent and HRH the owner of the buildings Fred Kite
  • Score: -8

10:30am Fri 18 Jul 14

UsernameWithheld says...

IT IS NOT A TAX ON BEDROOMS!!!!!!!!!!

YOU RECEIVE FREE MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR A RENTED HOUSE, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BOWING AT THE TAXPAYERS FEET WITH THANKS FOR PAYING THERE RENT FOR MANY YEARS IN THE PAST AND INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THE DROP BY 14% FOR 1 EXTRA BEDROOM AND 25% FOR 2 EXTRA BEDROOMS ISN'T A TAX IT IS SIMPLY THE TAXPAYER SAYING THEY WILL NOT GIVE PEOPLE FREE ROOMS JUST LIKE THERE NOT GIVEN FREE ROOMS WHEN THEY BUY A HOUSE.

MONEY DOESN'T COME FROM NOWHERE AND I SIMPLY THINK THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY GET.

NOTE: I AM NOT AGAINST HELPING THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO LIVE BUT THEY SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN AND SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE.
IT IS NOT A TAX ON BEDROOMS!!!!!!!!!! YOU RECEIVE FREE MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR A RENTED HOUSE, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BOWING AT THE TAXPAYERS FEET WITH THANKS FOR PAYING THERE RENT FOR MANY YEARS IN THE PAST AND INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THE DROP BY 14% FOR 1 EXTRA BEDROOM AND 25% FOR 2 EXTRA BEDROOMS ISN'T A TAX IT IS SIMPLY THE TAXPAYER SAYING THEY WILL NOT GIVE PEOPLE FREE ROOMS JUST LIKE THERE NOT GIVEN FREE ROOMS WHEN THEY BUY A HOUSE. MONEY DOESN'T COME FROM NOWHERE AND I SIMPLY THINK THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY GET. NOTE: I AM NOT AGAINST HELPING THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO LIVE BUT THEY SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN AND SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE. UsernameWithheld
  • Score: 65

10:31am Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

It's no a bloody tax! Typical socialist left wing dogma trying working a honest living and paying open market rates! If you want the luxury of an extra room or bigger house then bloody well pay for it. Sick and tired of the selfish self entitlement lobbyist, if want something go a bloody well work for it!
It's no a bloody tax! Typical socialist left wing dogma trying working a honest living and paying open market rates! If you want the luxury of an extra room or bigger house then bloody well pay for it. Sick and tired of the selfish self entitlement lobbyist, if want something go a bloody well work for it! cj07589
  • Score: 50

10:34am Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
I agree social housing should only be for the British disabled, oaps and those at risk. This country is beyond a joke and these jokers have the nerve to call it a tax! Most of this lot don't pay any tax!
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.[/p][/quote]I agree social housing should only be for the British disabled, oaps and those at risk. This country is beyond a joke and these jokers have the nerve to call it a tax! Most of this lot don't pay any tax! cj07589
  • Score: 33

10:39am Fri 18 Jul 14

Preston North End says...

Rachel Stretton, if you're going to write propaganda for the Labour party, the done thing is to say 'sponsored content' somewhere.
Rachel Stretton, if you're going to write propaganda for the Labour party, the done thing is to say 'sponsored content' somewhere. Preston North End
  • Score: 31

11:07am Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

Preston North End wrote:
Rachel Stretton, if you're going to write propaganda for the Labour party, the done thing is to say 'sponsored content' somewhere.
Well said. labours new slogan 'shirkers we need your votes' from the nasty party who hate the English anything successful and the middle classes.
[quote][p][bold]Preston North End[/bold] wrote: Rachel Stretton, if you're going to write propaganda for the Labour party, the done thing is to say 'sponsored content' somewhere.[/p][/quote]Well said. labours new slogan 'shirkers we need your votes' from the nasty party who hate the English anything successful and the middle classes. cj07589
  • Score: 7

11:35am Fri 18 Jul 14

Hippyhooker says...

Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts. Hippyhooker
  • Score: -13

11:37am Fri 18 Jul 14

leo210856 says...

Fred Kite wrote:
The point I was making is Guinness are an agent and HRH the owner of the buildings
35% of the housing on Poundbury is being built by Housing Associations, they are either owned by way of shared equity or owned and managed by the likes of the Guinness Trust , indeed this is confirmed on the Duchy's information sheet
http://duchyofcornwa
ll.org/assets/images
/documents/Poundbury
_Factsheet_2013.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: The point I was making is Guinness are an agent and HRH the owner of the buildings[/p][/quote]35% of the housing on Poundbury is being built by Housing Associations, they are either owned by way of shared equity or owned and managed by the likes of the Guinness Trust , indeed this is confirmed on the Duchy's information sheet http://duchyofcornwa ll.org/assets/images /documents/Poundbury _Factsheet_2013.pdf leo210856
  • Score: 5

11:41am Fri 18 Jul 14

trymybest says...

Can someone please tell me why anyone other than the disabled are entitled to housing benefit. My parents where council tenants and if they did not pay their rent they lost their home not a room, if the council thought you had a car or any luxury's at all they would tell them to sell them first before any help was given, we should bring back means testing for any council benefits. As one of four children it was hard but we all learnt and remembered to the point as adults we all own our homes and paid our own way in life like most hard working people.
Can someone please tell me why anyone other than the disabled are entitled to housing benefit. My parents where council tenants and if they did not pay their rent they lost their home not a room, if the council thought you had a car or any luxury's at all they would tell them to sell them first before any help was given, we should bring back means testing for any council benefits. As one of four children it was hard but we all learnt and remembered to the point as adults we all own our homes and paid our own way in life like most hard working people. trymybest
  • Score: 32

11:44am Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

trymybest wrote:
Can someone please tell me why anyone other than the disabled are entitled to housing benefit. My parents where council tenants and if they did not pay their rent they lost their home not a room, if the council thought you had a car or any luxury's at all they would tell them to sell them first before any help was given, we should bring back means testing for any council benefits. As one of four children it was hard but we all learnt and remembered to the point as adults we all own our homes and paid our own way in life like most hard working people.
Because the welfare state is broken & not fit for purpose. That is why.
[quote][p][bold]trymybest[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell me why anyone other than the disabled are entitled to housing benefit. My parents where council tenants and if they did not pay their rent they lost their home not a room, if the council thought you had a car or any luxury's at all they would tell them to sell them first before any help was given, we should bring back means testing for any council benefits. As one of four children it was hard but we all learnt and remembered to the point as adults we all own our homes and paid our own way in life like most hard working people.[/p][/quote]Because the welfare state is broken & not fit for purpose. That is why. cj07589
  • Score: 21

11:48am Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
[quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up! cj07589
  • Score: 40

12:26pm Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

cj07589 wrote:
Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy.
I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it.
While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move.
A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected.
However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up![/p][/quote]I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy. I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it. While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move. A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected. However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,. JamesYoung
  • Score: 17

12:45pm Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy.
I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it.
While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move.
A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected.
However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.
It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up![/p][/quote]I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy. I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it. While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move. A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected. However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.[/p][/quote]It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market. cj07589
  • Score: 20

1:03pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Coxywey says...

I know most will not agree with me but I do feel that a lot of housing that could be freed up for families are being held by older people who only use 1 bedroon, I know an elderley neighbour that is living in a 3 bedroom house alone after losing her husband and though I sympathise I do feel when you agree to live in a social housing property should your circumstances change then you agree to be moved to a smaller property, freeing up much needed housing space to families that are in desperate need. If this happened we would not have the housing crisis we currently have. Older people can live very happliy in smaller homes even bungalows and have all the adaptions required to make it very comfortable without staying in huge houses.
I know most will not agree with me but I do feel that a lot of housing that could be freed up for families are being held by older people who only use 1 bedroon, I know an elderley neighbour that is living in a 3 bedroom house alone after losing her husband and though I sympathise I do feel when you agree to live in a social housing property should your circumstances change then you agree to be moved to a smaller property, freeing up much needed housing space to families that are in desperate need. If this happened we would not have the housing crisis we currently have. Older people can live very happliy in smaller homes even bungalows and have all the adaptions required to make it very comfortable without staying in huge houses. Coxywey
  • Score: 30

1:03pm Fri 18 Jul 14

southwellman says...

Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too! southwellman
  • Score: 15

1:10pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Bert Fry says...

cj07589 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy.
I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it.
While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move.
A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected.
However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.
It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.
I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes?
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up![/p][/quote]I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy. I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it. While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move. A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected. However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.[/p][/quote]It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.[/p][/quote]I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes? Bert Fry
  • Score: 12

1:11pm Fri 18 Jul 14

MadMicke12 says...

Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages.

I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security.

When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money.

So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning.

Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all.

One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so.

If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people.

When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country.

Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet.

The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants.

The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn
e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits.

I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.
Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages. I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security. When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money. So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning. Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all. One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so. If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people. When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country. Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet. The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants. The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits. I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone. MadMicke12
  • Score: 2

1:40pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Bollard says...

Most social housing in this country was built after WWII for returning soldiers and their families to live in under the 'homes for heroes' banner. The intention was that hard working families could have a decent home to live in especially if they were working in key roles that didn't pay so much money.
Of course Thatcher then sold off a huge chunk of those houses at giveaway prices to these people who previously wouldn't have been able to afford to buy. Therefore we now have the current situation where most properties are occupied by those who can't work and those who won't work. Unfortunately those who can't work and those that do work get tarred with the same brush as those who won't work. and are stigmatised.
Most social housing in this country was built after WWII for returning soldiers and their families to live in under the 'homes for heroes' banner. The intention was that hard working families could have a decent home to live in especially if they were working in key roles that didn't pay so much money. Of course Thatcher then sold off a huge chunk of those houses at giveaway prices to these people who previously wouldn't have been able to afford to buy. Therefore we now have the current situation where most properties are occupied by those who can't work and those who won't work. Unfortunately those who can't work and those that do work get tarred with the same brush as those who won't work. and are stigmatised. Bollard
  • Score: 10

1:40pm Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages.

I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security.

When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money.

So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning.

Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all.

One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so.

If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people.

When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country.

Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet.

The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants.

The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn

e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits.

I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.
Well when I couldn't get a job locally I put everything at risk and moved closer to London to get a job. Obviously I must be the exception to the status quo where its a case of blame everybody else and expect to given it all on a plate.
Life is tough & you need to make tough decisions & sacrifices such as moving away from family and network etc... so sorry if I don't align to your feel sorry for me paragraphs of excuses.
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages. I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security. When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money. So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning. Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all. One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so. If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people. When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country. Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet. The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants. The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits. I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.[/p][/quote]Well when I couldn't get a job locally I put everything at risk and moved closer to London to get a job. Obviously I must be the exception to the status quo where its a case of blame everybody else and expect to given it all on a plate. Life is tough & you need to make tough decisions & sacrifices such as moving away from family and network etc... so sorry if I don't align to your feel sorry for me paragraphs of excuses. cj07589
  • Score: 21

1:42pm Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

Bert Fry wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy.
I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it.
While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move.
A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected.
However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.
It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.
I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes?
Yes those idiot torys which are no better than liebour who use it to buy votes using unfunded money! It's enough to make you cry that people still vote for these shysters.
[quote][p][bold]Bert Fry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up![/p][/quote]I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy. I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it. While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move. A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected. However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.[/p][/quote]It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.[/p][/quote]I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes?[/p][/quote]Yes those idiot torys which are no better than liebour who use it to buy votes using unfunded money! It's enough to make you cry that people still vote for these shysters. cj07589
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Bollard says...

southwellman wrote:
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground!
[quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too![/p][/quote]When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground! Bollard
  • Score: 12

2:01pm Fri 18 Jul 14

satisfecho says...

Bollard wrote:
southwellman wrote:
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground!
What is 'having to spend so much in rent'?

My mortgage is around £600 a month, houses to rent in same street £50 more.

A couple earning between them £25k, the lower end of a couple take home will leave £1k to spend on food, gas, council tax etc would be around another £500.

That leaves £500 play money each month.

If you really want a mortgage and your own home then put £200 away each month and in 10 years you will have £24k deposit.

If you think you have to have children then don't go complaining because you can't do the maths and have no money to get by.
[quote][p][bold]Bollard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too![/p][/quote]When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground![/p][/quote]What is 'having to spend so much in rent'? My mortgage is around £600 a month, houses to rent in same street £50 more. A couple earning between them £25k, the lower end of a couple take home will leave £1k to spend on food, gas, council tax etc would be around another £500. That leaves £500 play money each month. If you really want a mortgage and your own home then put £200 away each month and in 10 years you will have £24k deposit. If you think you have to have children then don't go complaining because you can't do the maths and have no money to get by. satisfecho
  • Score: 6

2:43pm Fri 18 Jul 14

not too distant says...

All scroungers should be drafted and sent overseas... Lets find a use for these lazy "my back hurts", "Im a single parent", "how am I supposed to feed my dogs?" types who sit about all day annoying hard working neighbours... They are just travellers who cant be bothered to save for a caravan, so go do one the lot of you...
All scroungers should be drafted and sent overseas... Lets find a use for these lazy "my back hurts", "Im a single parent", "how am I supposed to feed my dogs?" types who sit about all day annoying hard working neighbours... They are just travellers who cant be bothered to save for a caravan, so go do one the lot of you... not too distant
  • Score: 9

2:47pm Fri 18 Jul 14

marabout says...

I find it absolutely hilarious that a respectable newspaper such as this has fallen for the oldest con in the book.


Comments from Teresa Green ....... Fantastic name.

Does anyone else have similar names (Clean ones please)
I find it absolutely hilarious that a respectable newspaper such as this has fallen for the oldest con in the book. Comments from Teresa Green ....... Fantastic name. Does anyone else have similar names (Clean ones please) marabout
  • Score: 2

3:03pm Fri 18 Jul 14

marabout says...

A WEYMOUTH widow who has been hit by the Bedroom Tax said she would rather die than leave her home.
The woman, who is disabled and told her story to the Dorset Echo on condition of anonymity, has had her housing benefit docked by 25 per cent after her husband died and her son moved out.








Madam - You cannot live in a four bedroomed house on your own when there are people desperate for this house. Stop being so selfish.
A WEYMOUTH widow who has been hit by the Bedroom Tax said she would rather die than leave her home. The woman, who is disabled and told her story to the Dorset Echo on condition of anonymity, has had her housing benefit docked by 25 per cent after her husband died and her son moved out. Madam - You cannot live in a four bedroomed house on your own when there are people desperate for this house. Stop being so selfish. marabout
  • Score: 31

3:08pm Fri 18 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

not too distant wrote:
All scroungers should be drafted and sent overseas... Lets find a use for these lazy "my back hurts", "Im a single parent", "how am I supposed to feed my dogs?" types who sit about all day annoying hard working neighbours... They are just travellers who cant be bothered to save for a caravan, so go do one the lot of you...
Problem is this country is now open games to the dredges of Europe as well so it ain't going to get any better. No wonder certain East European immigrants call it treasure island! Love the rant re. Barking dogs it's so true and to add insult to injury these types of scumbags couldn't give a toss about the misery they inflict on others let alone the mugs who pay for there every need.
[quote][p][bold]not too distant[/bold] wrote: All scroungers should be drafted and sent overseas... Lets find a use for these lazy "my back hurts", "Im a single parent", "how am I supposed to feed my dogs?" types who sit about all day annoying hard working neighbours... They are just travellers who cant be bothered to save for a caravan, so go do one the lot of you...[/p][/quote]Problem is this country is now open games to the dredges of Europe as well so it ain't going to get any better. No wonder certain East European immigrants call it treasure island! Love the rant re. Barking dogs it's so true and to add insult to injury these types of scumbags couldn't give a toss about the misery they inflict on others let alone the mugs who pay for there every need. cj07589
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Fri 18 Jul 14

iansedwell says...

ino69 wrote:
Oh FFS. Stop winging about getting stuff cheap or in many cases free. Try getting a two bedroom house for £386.75 or 3 bedroom for £456.73 a month if you are a normal hardworking person with no kids. No, I am not saying none of the people in these houses work. But the majority don't. Because you can't get any housing benefit at all if you earn your own money. And neither should you. I see no reason why I and other people should pay for someone else luxury lifestyle. If you own TV's, have sky, a games console (or in many cases 2 or 3), smartphones and tablets etc etc then you are doing just fine.
The great majority of people on Housing Benefit are people in work.

The government's own data give the full picture of how widespread the problem is: https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/collection
s/housing-benefit-an
d-council-tax-benefi
t-caseload-statistic
s--2

More than half the population of Dorset is on part-time work or zero-hours. This is one of the most poverty stricken parts of of the UK, again check the government statistics via the above link.

Finally, your comments vis-à-vis games console and the like belies a breathtaking ignorance and foolishness on your part.
[quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: Oh FFS. Stop winging about getting stuff cheap or in many cases free. Try getting a two bedroom house for £386.75 or 3 bedroom for £456.73 a month if you are a normal hardworking person with no kids. No, I am not saying none of the people in these houses work. But the majority don't. Because you can't get any housing benefit at all if you earn your own money. And neither should you. I see no reason why I and other people should pay for someone else luxury lifestyle. If you own TV's, have sky, a games console (or in many cases 2 or 3), smartphones and tablets etc etc then you are doing just fine.[/p][/quote]The great majority of people on Housing Benefit are people in work. The government's own data give the full picture of how widespread the problem is: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/collection s/housing-benefit-an d-council-tax-benefi t-caseload-statistic s--2 More than half the population of Dorset is on part-time work or zero-hours. This is one of the most poverty stricken parts of of the UK, again check the government statistics via the above link. Finally, your comments vis-à-vis games console and the like belies a breathtaking ignorance and foolishness on your part. iansedwell
  • Score: -2

3:51pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Hateignorance says...

Reading these comments it is scary how many vile and ignorant people live in this town. It is such a shame that that show no empathy or understanding for a complex situation in which many thousands are struggling. Yes some abuse the system - name me a system that is not abused? There are hundreds of billions avoided/evaded in tax funny how these 'people' are so quiet about them.
Whatever you want to name it Spare room subsidy or Bedroom tax we know the real reason it was brought in. Rich landlords who subsidise the Tory party calling the shots on policy especially in London. Then the proles turn on each other and ignore the real corruption. It's all in Nineteen Eight Four.
Reading these comments it is scary how many vile and ignorant people live in this town. It is such a shame that that show no empathy or understanding for a complex situation in which many thousands are struggling. Yes some abuse the system - name me a system that is not abused? There are hundreds of billions avoided/evaded in tax funny how these 'people' are so quiet about them. Whatever you want to name it Spare room subsidy or Bedroom tax we know the real reason it was brought in. Rich landlords who subsidise the Tory party calling the shots on policy especially in London. Then the proles turn on each other and ignore the real corruption. It's all in Nineteen Eight Four. Hateignorance
  • Score: 1

3:52pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Hateignorance says...

Reading these comments it is scary how many vile and ignorant people live in this town. It is such a shame that they show no empathy or understanding for a complex situation in which many thousands are struggling. Yes some abuse the system - name me a system that is not abused? There are hundreds of billions avoided/evaded in tax - funny how these 'people' are so quiet about them.
Whatever you want to name it Spare room subsidy or Bedroom tax we know the real reason it was brought in. Rich landlords who subsidise the Tory party calling the shots on policy especially in London. Then the proles turn on each other and ignore the real corruption. It's all in Nineteen Eight Four.
Reading these comments it is scary how many vile and ignorant people live in this town. It is such a shame that they show no empathy or understanding for a complex situation in which many thousands are struggling. Yes some abuse the system - name me a system that is not abused? There are hundreds of billions avoided/evaded in tax - funny how these 'people' are so quiet about them. Whatever you want to name it Spare room subsidy or Bedroom tax we know the real reason it was brought in. Rich landlords who subsidise the Tory party calling the shots on policy especially in London. Then the proles turn on each other and ignore the real corruption. It's all in Nineteen Eight Four. Hateignorance
  • Score: -5

4:00pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Hateignorance says...

So good I published it three times :)

Reading these comments it is scary how many vile and ignorant people live in this town. It is such a shame that they show no empathy or understanding for a complex situation in which many thousands are struggling. Yes some abuse the system - name me a system that is not abused? There are hundreds of billions avoided/evaded in tax - funny how these 'people' are so quiet about them.
Whatever you want to name it Spare room subsidy or Bedroom tax we know the real reason it was brought in. Rich landlords who subsidise the Tory party calling the shots on policy especially in London. Then the proles turn on each other and ignore the real corruption. It's all in Nineteen Eighty Four.
So good I published it three times :) Reading these comments it is scary how many vile and ignorant people live in this town. It is such a shame that they show no empathy or understanding for a complex situation in which many thousands are struggling. Yes some abuse the system - name me a system that is not abused? There are hundreds of billions avoided/evaded in tax - funny how these 'people' are so quiet about them. Whatever you want to name it Spare room subsidy or Bedroom tax we know the real reason it was brought in. Rich landlords who subsidise the Tory party calling the shots on policy especially in London. Then the proles turn on each other and ignore the real corruption. It's all in Nineteen Eighty Four. Hateignorance
  • Score: -9

4:24pm Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Bert Fry wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy.
I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it.
While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move.
A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected.
However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.
It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.
I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes?
The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972.
[quote][p][bold]Bert Fry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up![/p][/quote]I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy. I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it. While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move. A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected. However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.[/p][/quote]It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.[/p][/quote]I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes?[/p][/quote]The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972. JamesYoung
  • Score: 7

4:29pm Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

satisfecho wrote:
Bollard wrote:
southwellman wrote:
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground!
What is 'having to spend so much in rent'?

My mortgage is around £600 a month, houses to rent in same street £50 more.

A couple earning between them £25k, the lower end of a couple take home will leave £1k to spend on food, gas, council tax etc would be around another £500.

That leaves £500 play money each month.

If you really want a mortgage and your own home then put £200 away each month and in 10 years you will have £24k deposit.

If you think you have to have children then don't go complaining because you can't do the maths and have no money to get by.
If you really want a mortgage and your own home, don't buy it.
It is only when buyers stop buying that prices will fall. In London, this month, transaction volumes in so called prime areas were down 45% compared to this month last year.
If you get a stomach bug, you can try and try but eventually you will be sick. The government has taken the same approach....it interfered in 2008, when prices should naturally have been falling, by plowing billions of pounds of taxpayers money into the housing market through FLS (which was supposed to get business back on its feet).
This is why so many people are suffering hardship. House prices went up, and rents stayed high, while wages and benefits fell.
After a bubble comes a crash. Like vomiting, it's the first painful step on the road to recovery ;-) !!!
[quote][p][bold]satisfecho[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bollard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too![/p][/quote]When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground![/p][/quote]What is 'having to spend so much in rent'? My mortgage is around £600 a month, houses to rent in same street £50 more. A couple earning between them £25k, the lower end of a couple take home will leave £1k to spend on food, gas, council tax etc would be around another £500. That leaves £500 play money each month. If you really want a mortgage and your own home then put £200 away each month and in 10 years you will have £24k deposit. If you think you have to have children then don't go complaining because you can't do the maths and have no money to get by.[/p][/quote]If you really want a mortgage and your own home, don't buy it. It is only when buyers stop buying that prices will fall. In London, this month, transaction volumes in so called prime areas were down 45% compared to this month last year. If you get a stomach bug, you can try and try but eventually you will be sick. The government has taken the same approach....it interfered in 2008, when prices should naturally have been falling, by plowing billions of pounds of taxpayers money into the housing market through FLS (which was supposed to get business back on its feet). This is why so many people are suffering hardship. House prices went up, and rents stayed high, while wages and benefits fell. After a bubble comes a crash. Like vomiting, it's the first painful step on the road to recovery ;-) !!! JamesYoung
  • Score: 6

4:32pm Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages.

I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security.

When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money.

So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning.

Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all.

One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so.

If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people.

When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country.

Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet.

The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants.

The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn

e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits.

I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.
If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector.
I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down.
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages. I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security. When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money. So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning. Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all. One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so. If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people. When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country. Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet. The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants. The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits. I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.[/p][/quote]If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector. I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

4:38pm Fri 18 Jul 14

trymybest says...

All the council housing stock where handed over to NON profit housing associations so why are their rents so high that the council tax payer has to subsidise their tenants.
All the council housing stock where handed over to NON profit housing associations so why are their rents so high that the council tax payer has to subsidise their tenants. trymybest
  • Score: 7

4:49pm Fri 18 Jul 14

monkeydog says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Bert Fry wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy.
I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it.
While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move.
A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected.
However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.
It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.
I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes?
The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972.
What's really important is the a million council houses were sold by Thatcher's government up to 1987.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bert Fry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up![/p][/quote]I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy. I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it. While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move. A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected. However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.[/p][/quote]It would also be sensible that council tenants are no longer given the right to buy which simply not sustainable and reduces supply adding unneeded pressure on an already very unaffordable housing market.[/p][/quote]I wonder what genius came up with the idea of selling off council houses in order to buy votes?[/p][/quote]The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972.[/p][/quote]What's really important is the a million council houses were sold by Thatcher's government up to 1987. monkeydog
  • Score: 6

4:52pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Get a grip says...

Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub.

Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.
Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub. Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases. Get a grip
  • Score: 12

4:58pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Bert Fry says...

JamesYoung wrote:
MadMicke12 wrote:
Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages.

I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security.

When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money.

So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning.

Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all.

One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so.

If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people.

When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country.

Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet.

The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants.

The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn


e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits.

I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.
If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector.
I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down.
But too many of the jobs crated in the private sector are minimum wage and insecure. Exactly the type of person forced to claim housing benefit. Force major employers to pay a Living wage and the need for housing benefit would diminish.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages. I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security. When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money. So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning. Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all. One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so. If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people. When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country. Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet. The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants. The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits. I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.[/p][/quote]If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector. I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down.[/p][/quote]But too many of the jobs crated in the private sector are minimum wage and insecure. Exactly the type of person forced to claim housing benefit. Force major employers to pay a Living wage and the need for housing benefit would diminish. Bert Fry
  • Score: 10

5:01pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Hateignorance says...

"The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972.
What's really important is the a million council houses were sold by Thatcher's government up to 1987."
But it lost the 1959 election and it was Heath (a Tory) in power in 1970 and 1972. The Labour Party merely suggested it they did not ingrain it in statute. Nor did they suggest that the revenue derived by local authorities could NOT be spent on building new council housing. Do not merely pick a bit from wikipedia and then leave out the most important information. Otherwise it is merely propaganda!
"The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972. What's really important is the a million council houses were sold by Thatcher's government up to 1987." But it lost the 1959 election and it was Heath (a Tory) in power in 1970 and 1972. The Labour Party merely suggested it they did not ingrain it in statute. Nor did they suggest that the revenue derived by local authorities could NOT be spent on building new council housing. Do not merely pick a bit from wikipedia and then leave out the most important information. Otherwise it is merely propaganda! Hateignorance
  • Score: 4

5:02pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Bert Fry says...

Get a grip wrote:
Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub.

Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.
Many of the comments on here remind me of the the saying;

"The plural of anecdote is not truth. The plural of assertion is not fact"
[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub. Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.[/p][/quote]Many of the comments on here remind me of the the saying; "The plural of anecdote is not truth. The plural of assertion is not fact" Bert Fry
  • Score: 3

5:10pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
The equivalent of the 'bedroom tax ' was introduced for private tenants years ago. It was introduced by the Labour Party who whilst making a big deal about the need to abolish bedroom tax for social housing apparently don't give a monky's about people with private landlords.
[quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]The equivalent of the 'bedroom tax ' was introduced for private tenants years ago. It was introduced by the Labour Party who whilst making a big deal about the need to abolish bedroom tax for social housing apparently don't give a monky's about people with private landlords. Rocksalt
  • Score: -1

5:10pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
The equivalent of the 'bedroom tax ' was introduced for private tenants years ago. It was introduced by the Labour Party who whilst making a big deal about the need to abolish bedroom tax for social housing apparently don't give a monky's about people with private landlords.
[quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]The equivalent of the 'bedroom tax ' was introduced for private tenants years ago. It was introduced by the Labour Party who whilst making a big deal about the need to abolish bedroom tax for social housing apparently don't give a monky's about people with private landlords. Rocksalt
  • Score: 2

5:13pm Fri 18 Jul 14

mickmackay says...

What a lot of you dont realise is 1% of taxpayers money is used on benefits, scroungers ha what about people who worked all there life and are now disabled, what if you lost work then your a scrounger too yes as you,ll be claiming benefits.
This is like a tax on the poor but a penalty too, if you have to move from 3 to 2 bed but they have none is it your fault, the con,dems new this but still penalised one.
What if theres no job for you is that your fault, if you are a good age is that your fault they say no because they want young kids, is that your fault, landlords tell council how much rent and size of there homes, council didnt check this out as they should of, is that your fault, people who do work get benefits too to help them make ends meet, is that there fault are they scroungers too, people work on zero hours is that there fault.
Try looking at con/dems more jobs, lies, more in work lies, need i say more. Look at what the tories have done sold all our heritage off, looked after thete own, 2 million homes by Thatcher o,yes Tories bought up now making millions, nhs o,yes Tories made millions in days when asked not to sell. Need i go on, R.Drax pays the same E,band c.tax as my mate for his estate, just look at all the facts guys as oneday you might be out of work and need benefits too will you now become a scrounger, NO
What a lot of you dont realise is 1% of taxpayers money is used on benefits, scroungers ha what about people who worked all there life and are now disabled, what if you lost work then your a scrounger too yes as you,ll be claiming benefits. This is like a tax on the poor but a penalty too, if you have to move from 3 to 2 bed but they have none is it your fault, the con,dems new this but still penalised one. What if theres no job for you is that your fault, if you are a good age is that your fault they say no because they want young kids, is that your fault, landlords tell council how much rent and size of there homes, council didnt check this out as they should of, is that your fault, people who do work get benefits too to help them make ends meet, is that there fault are they scroungers too, people work on zero hours is that there fault. Try looking at con/dems more jobs, lies, more in work lies, need i say more. Look at what the tories have done sold all our heritage off, looked after thete own, 2 million homes by Thatcher o,yes Tories bought up now making millions, nhs o,yes Tories made millions in days when asked not to sell. Need i go on, R.Drax pays the same E,band c.tax as my mate for his estate, just look at all the facts guys as oneday you might be out of work and need benefits too will you now become a scrounger, NO mickmackay
  • Score: 5

5:14pm Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Hateignorance wrote:
"The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972.
What's really important is the a million council houses were sold by Thatcher's government up to 1987."
But it lost the 1959 election and it was Heath (a Tory) in power in 1970 and 1972. The Labour Party merely suggested it they did not ingrain it in statute. Nor did they suggest that the revenue derived by local authorities could NOT be spent on building new council housing. Do not merely pick a bit from wikipedia and then leave out the most important information. Otherwise it is merely propaganda!
I answered a direct question: "Whose idea was that".
It was Labour's.
I'm no apologist for the Tories, but the fact remains, it was not Maggie Thatcher that had the idea.
Unless you are suggesting that she wrote the 1959 Labour manifesto?
In saying that, i genuinely believe that Thatcher believed in free markets and in letting people at the bottom of the pile own a stake in the country. I think that's a good think. It's every government that has come since that has buggered up the housing market. Most spectacularly under Labour, but i blame Osborne more, since he knew when he came to power what damage inflating asset bubbles does to an economy.
[quote][p][bold]Hateignorance[/bold] wrote: "The Labour Party. It formed part of their 1959 manifesto. 7,000 homes were sold in 1970 and 45,000 in 1972. What's really important is the a million council houses were sold by Thatcher's government up to 1987." But it lost the 1959 election and it was Heath (a Tory) in power in 1970 and 1972. The Labour Party merely suggested it they did not ingrain it in statute. Nor did they suggest that the revenue derived by local authorities could NOT be spent on building new council housing. Do not merely pick a bit from wikipedia and then leave out the most important information. Otherwise it is merely propaganda![/p][/quote]I answered a direct question: "Whose idea was that". It was Labour's. I'm no apologist for the Tories, but the fact remains, it was not Maggie Thatcher that had the idea. Unless you are suggesting that she wrote the 1959 Labour manifesto? In saying that, i genuinely believe that Thatcher believed in free markets and in letting people at the bottom of the pile own a stake in the country. I think that's a good think. It's every government that has come since that has buggered up the housing market. Most spectacularly under Labour, but i blame Osborne more, since he knew when he came to power what damage inflating asset bubbles does to an economy. JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

5:21pm Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

mickmackay wrote:
What a lot of you dont realise is 1% of taxpayers money is used on benefits, scroungers ha what about people who worked all there life and are now disabled, what if you lost work then your a scrounger too yes as you,ll be claiming benefits.
This is like a tax on the poor but a penalty too, if you have to move from 3 to 2 bed but they have none is it your fault, the con,dems new this but still penalised one.
What if theres no job for you is that your fault, if you are a good age is that your fault they say no because they want young kids, is that your fault, landlords tell council how much rent and size of there homes, council didnt check this out as they should of, is that your fault, people who do work get benefits too to help them make ends meet, is that there fault are they scroungers too, people work on zero hours is that there fault.
Try looking at con/dems more jobs, lies, more in work lies, need i say more. Look at what the tories have done sold all our heritage off, looked after thete own, 2 million homes by Thatcher o,yes Tories bought up now making millions, nhs o,yes Tories made millions in days when asked not to sell. Need i go on, R.Drax pays the same E,band c.tax as my mate for his estate, just look at all the facts guys as oneday you might be out of work and need benefits too will you now become a scrounger, NO
It amazes me that you can blame Thatcher for the housing crisis. It was caused by Brown and exacerbated by Osborne. Twenty years ago, two shop workers could afford to buy a house. However, while the sick and disabled sit at home, it is the undesirable, lazy troublemakers that people see on the streets. So i think it is understandable that people question why houses are being provided to families who have no reason not to work other than that they can't be asked.
On your points about the Tories and the unfairness of taxation, i entirely agree with you. Each acre of rural land in this country attracts £84 of taxpayer subsidy each year. The 50 biggest landowners received about £3m each last year in these subsidies. Yet if you own a house, you pay an average of £1800 in council tax, or, based on typical plot sizes, a whopping £18,000 per year.
[quote][p][bold]mickmackay[/bold] wrote: What a lot of you dont realise is 1% of taxpayers money is used on benefits, scroungers ha what about people who worked all there life and are now disabled, what if you lost work then your a scrounger too yes as you,ll be claiming benefits. This is like a tax on the poor but a penalty too, if you have to move from 3 to 2 bed but they have none is it your fault, the con,dems new this but still penalised one. What if theres no job for you is that your fault, if you are a good age is that your fault they say no because they want young kids, is that your fault, landlords tell council how much rent and size of there homes, council didnt check this out as they should of, is that your fault, people who do work get benefits too to help them make ends meet, is that there fault are they scroungers too, people work on zero hours is that there fault. Try looking at con/dems more jobs, lies, more in work lies, need i say more. Look at what the tories have done sold all our heritage off, looked after thete own, 2 million homes by Thatcher o,yes Tories bought up now making millions, nhs o,yes Tories made millions in days when asked not to sell. Need i go on, R.Drax pays the same E,band c.tax as my mate for his estate, just look at all the facts guys as oneday you might be out of work and need benefits too will you now become a scrounger, NO[/p][/quote]It amazes me that you can blame Thatcher for the housing crisis. It was caused by Brown and exacerbated by Osborne. Twenty years ago, two shop workers could afford to buy a house. However, while the sick and disabled sit at home, it is the undesirable, lazy troublemakers that people see on the streets. So i think it is understandable that people question why houses are being provided to families who have no reason not to work other than that they can't be asked. On your points about the Tories and the unfairness of taxation, i entirely agree with you. Each acre of rural land in this country attracts £84 of taxpayer subsidy each year. The 50 biggest landowners received about £3m each last year in these subsidies. Yet if you own a house, you pay an average of £1800 in council tax, or, based on typical plot sizes, a whopping £18,000 per year. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

5:22pm Fri 18 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

JamesYoung wrote:
mickmackay wrote:
What a lot of you dont realise is 1% of taxpayers money is used on benefits, scroungers ha what about people who worked all there life and are now disabled, what if you lost work then your a scrounger too yes as you,ll be claiming benefits.
This is like a tax on the poor but a penalty too, if you have to move from 3 to 2 bed but they have none is it your fault, the con,dems new this but still penalised one.
What if theres no job for you is that your fault, if you are a good age is that your fault they say no because they want young kids, is that your fault, landlords tell council how much rent and size of there homes, council didnt check this out as they should of, is that your fault, people who do work get benefits too to help them make ends meet, is that there fault are they scroungers too, people work on zero hours is that there fault.
Try looking at con/dems more jobs, lies, more in work lies, need i say more. Look at what the tories have done sold all our heritage off, looked after thete own, 2 million homes by Thatcher o,yes Tories bought up now making millions, nhs o,yes Tories made millions in days when asked not to sell. Need i go on, R.Drax pays the same E,band c.tax as my mate for his estate, just look at all the facts guys as oneday you might be out of work and need benefits too will you now become a scrounger, NO
It amazes me that you can blame Thatcher for the housing crisis. It was caused by Brown and exacerbated by Osborne. Twenty years ago, two shop workers could afford to buy a house. However, while the sick and disabled sit at home, it is the undesirable, lazy troublemakers that people see on the streets. So i think it is understandable that people question why houses are being provided to families who have no reason not to work other than that they can't be asked.
On your points about the Tories and the unfairness of taxation, i entirely agree with you. Each acre of rural land in this country attracts £84 of taxpayer subsidy each year. The 50 biggest landowners received about £3m each last year in these subsidies. Yet if you own a house, you pay an average of £1800 in council tax, or, based on typical plot sizes, a whopping £18,000 per year.
PS: for asked, read arsed.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mickmackay[/bold] wrote: What a lot of you dont realise is 1% of taxpayers money is used on benefits, scroungers ha what about people who worked all there life and are now disabled, what if you lost work then your a scrounger too yes as you,ll be claiming benefits. This is like a tax on the poor but a penalty too, if you have to move from 3 to 2 bed but they have none is it your fault, the con,dems new this but still penalised one. What if theres no job for you is that your fault, if you are a good age is that your fault they say no because they want young kids, is that your fault, landlords tell council how much rent and size of there homes, council didnt check this out as they should of, is that your fault, people who do work get benefits too to help them make ends meet, is that there fault are they scroungers too, people work on zero hours is that there fault. Try looking at con/dems more jobs, lies, more in work lies, need i say more. Look at what the tories have done sold all our heritage off, looked after thete own, 2 million homes by Thatcher o,yes Tories bought up now making millions, nhs o,yes Tories made millions in days when asked not to sell. Need i go on, R.Drax pays the same E,band c.tax as my mate for his estate, just look at all the facts guys as oneday you might be out of work and need benefits too will you now become a scrounger, NO[/p][/quote]It amazes me that you can blame Thatcher for the housing crisis. It was caused by Brown and exacerbated by Osborne. Twenty years ago, two shop workers could afford to buy a house. However, while the sick and disabled sit at home, it is the undesirable, lazy troublemakers that people see on the streets. So i think it is understandable that people question why houses are being provided to families who have no reason not to work other than that they can't be asked. On your points about the Tories and the unfairness of taxation, i entirely agree with you. Each acre of rural land in this country attracts £84 of taxpayer subsidy each year. The 50 biggest landowners received about £3m each last year in these subsidies. Yet if you own a house, you pay an average of £1800 in council tax, or, based on typical plot sizes, a whopping £18,000 per year.[/p][/quote]PS: for asked, read arsed. JamesYoung
  • Score: 1

5:59pm Fri 18 Jul 14

every user name was taken says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages.

I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security.

When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money.

So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning.

Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all.

One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so.

If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people.

When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country.

Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet.

The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants.

The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn

e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits.

I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.
I was a merchant sailor and when I was laid off I did not sign on in the hope that I was going to get another job at sea. When my savings had gone I ended up getting a job counting over size G strings at New Look for a while. Most people with a bit of moral self respect will find a job, they are out their if you are realistic.
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages. I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security. When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money. So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning. Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all. One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so. If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people. When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country. Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet. The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants. The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits. I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.[/p][/quote]I was a merchant sailor and when I was laid off I did not sign on in the hope that I was going to get another job at sea. When my savings had gone I ended up getting a job counting over size G strings at New Look for a while. Most people with a bit of moral self respect will find a job, they are out their if you are realistic. every user name was taken
  • Score: 18

6:24pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Noidear says...

Let's just get rid of this liberal society we've become , it costs to much?.
Let's just get rid of this liberal society we've become , it costs to much?. Noidear
  • Score: 1

7:27pm Fri 18 Jul 14

mollyanna says...

All rent should be the same council or private
I am in private rent 1 bed flat if I decide I would like to live in a 3 bed garden . then I must pay the extra going rate 700\800 mth
But if I am with council I get this for free
Sorry don't think so
All rent should be the same council or private I am in private rent 1 bed flat if I decide I would like to live in a 3 bed garden . then I must pay the extra going rate 700\800 mth But if I am with council I get this for free Sorry don't think so mollyanna
  • Score: 4

8:14pm Fri 18 Jul 14

iansedwell says...

Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
You forgot to mention the apparent need to be rude, defamatory, racist, bigoted and just plain nasty. Otherwise, spot on! :-)
[quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention the apparent need to be rude, defamatory, racist, bigoted and just plain nasty. Otherwise, spot on! :-) iansedwell
  • Score: -9

8:54pm Fri 18 Jul 14

PHonnor says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.[/p][/quote]If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help. PHonnor
  • Score: 6

9:56pm Fri 18 Jul 14

trymybest says...

PHonnor wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.
Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.[/p][/quote]If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.[/p][/quote]Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage. trymybest
  • Score: 3

11:07pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room.. Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: -7

11:43pm Fri 18 Jul 14

1Kimberlin says...

Maybe the lady on right of the picture should remember this when she's dancing around Westham Road Brahms& List at stupid o'clock in the morning. Money for Clubbing but not for rent eh
Maybe the lady on right of the picture should remember this when she's dancing around Westham Road Brahms& List at stupid o'clock in the morning. Money for Clubbing but not for rent eh 1Kimberlin
  • Score: 5

4:29am Sat 19 Jul 14

southwellman says...

Bollard wrote:
southwellman wrote:
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground!
Do you not think it was hard in the 90,s I was earning less that 10k a year and the house I brought was more than 4 times my income.. It was hard but I did not expect anyone to bail me out and I had my priorities right.. not have a bucket full of kids and sit around expecting the government to give me a living...
[quote][p][bold]Bollard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too![/p][/quote]When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground![/p][/quote]Do you not think it was hard in the 90,s I was earning less that 10k a year and the house I brought was more than 4 times my income.. It was hard but I did not expect anyone to bail me out and I had my priorities right.. not have a bucket full of kids and sit around expecting the government to give me a living... southwellman
  • Score: 9

7:12am Sat 19 Jul 14

PHonnor says...

trymybest wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.
Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.
Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem.
[quote][p][bold]trymybest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.[/p][/quote]If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.[/p][/quote]Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.[/p][/quote]Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem. PHonnor
  • Score: 6

7:25am Sat 19 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study!
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study! Rocksalt
  • Score: 7

8:01am Sat 19 Jul 14

weymouthresident says...

What many people seem to be overlooking is the fact that renters do not own their 'homes' and therefore have no right to stay in these 'houses' if they don't need a 4 bedroom house when there's only one person living there. Hard working tax payers (and there are many of us in Weymouth and area, despite people saying there are no jobs) are sick of supplementing the non-workers and immigrants. Why should we work all week to save for our 'luxuries' only to have our taxes handed over to those who smoke, drink, own huge TVs, nice cars, holidays, et al, when these are funded from money handed to them without them even stopping to think where the money came from to fund their lifestyles. In days gone by benefits were in the form of voucher for essentials. Maybe this system should be brought back so that scroungers can't use their benefits for other things and then go crying to the system saying they can't afford to feed their families, etc. You can almost guarantee they use their smartphones to call the benefits office when they need to claim more!

My 18 year old decided that she needed to earn some more money. It took 3 days for her to find and land a well paid full-time job in Weymouth proving that it is not difficult to find work if you look. In addition to this she is still working her part-time weekend job.

One of the questions not discussed above is the work ethic of those complaining about losing benefits. Admittedly there are some who cannot work but most just can't be bothered as they know they can live off of the rest of us.
What many people seem to be overlooking is the fact that renters do not own their 'homes' and therefore have no right to stay in these 'houses' if they don't need a 4 bedroom house when there's only one person living there. Hard working tax payers (and there are many of us in Weymouth and area, despite people saying there are no jobs) are sick of supplementing the non-workers and immigrants. Why should we work all week to save for our 'luxuries' only to have our taxes handed over to those who smoke, drink, own huge TVs, nice cars, holidays, et al, when these are funded from money handed to them without them even stopping to think where the money came from to fund their lifestyles. In days gone by benefits were in the form of voucher for essentials. Maybe this system should be brought back so that scroungers can't use their benefits for other things and then go crying to the system saying they can't afford to feed their families, etc. You can almost guarantee they use their smartphones to call the benefits office when they need to claim more! My 18 year old decided that she needed to earn some more money. It took 3 days for her to find and land a well paid full-time job in Weymouth proving that it is not difficult to find work if you look. In addition to this she is still working her part-time weekend job. One of the questions not discussed above is the work ethic of those complaining about losing benefits. Admittedly there are some who cannot work but most just can't be bothered as they know they can live off of the rest of us. weymouthresident
  • Score: 14

9:33am Sat 19 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

PHonnor wrote:
trymybest wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.
Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.
Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem.
I think what you are describing is the ultimate and inevitable failure of capitalism, an ideology that until about 2 years ago i was completely sold on.
The only way to make profit in a globalised world with competitors in cheaper regions is to drive down your costs. That means you have to pay your staff less (or, you can get away with paying your staff less as everybody else is too). There is also a tax benefit for employing people on minimum wage for less than 18 hours a week (no NI to pay).
So we end up with a society in which people are earning less than they need to survive, which means that the business in question loses customers and profits and the cycle begins again.
The government can intervene here and fill the gaps in income with state benefits, which are therefore not a benefit for the recipient, but a benefit for businesses, because they can get away with paying lower wages. However, this dishing out of benefits comes at a cost: higher taxes or reallocation of spending from elsewhere. A proportion of those taxes falls on individual taxpayers and a proportion falls on businesses. Larger businesses are able to duck these taxes through creative accounting and using transfer pricing to avoid domestic tax., so the burden falls unfairly on smaller businesses, which ultimately go under.
Consumers still want to spend though, and therefore the take up of debt becomes seen as a human right. You've only got to read sites like mums net to see how angry people get when the bank tells them it won't give them more debt. Debt thus becomes a political issue and the government introduces schemes such as help to buy and funding for lending to keep the drug flowing.
But ultimately, governments don't control debt, markets do. And when lending dries up, you have people struggling to make ends meet while wages and benefits are falling.
In other words: checkmate.
I think we are about 12-18 months from this situation.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trymybest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.[/p][/quote]If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.[/p][/quote]Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.[/p][/quote]Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem.[/p][/quote]I think what you are describing is the ultimate and inevitable failure of capitalism, an ideology that until about 2 years ago i was completely sold on. The only way to make profit in a globalised world with competitors in cheaper regions is to drive down your costs. That means you have to pay your staff less (or, you can get away with paying your staff less as everybody else is too). There is also a tax benefit for employing people on minimum wage for less than 18 hours a week (no NI to pay). So we end up with a society in which people are earning less than they need to survive, which means that the business in question loses customers and profits and the cycle begins again. The government can intervene here and fill the gaps in income with state benefits, which are therefore not a benefit for the recipient, but a benefit for businesses, because they can get away with paying lower wages. However, this dishing out of benefits comes at a cost: higher taxes or reallocation of spending from elsewhere. A proportion of those taxes falls on individual taxpayers and a proportion falls on businesses. Larger businesses are able to duck these taxes through creative accounting and using transfer pricing to avoid domestic tax., so the burden falls unfairly on smaller businesses, which ultimately go under. Consumers still want to spend though, and therefore the take up of debt becomes seen as a human right. You've only got to read sites like mums net to see how angry people get when the bank tells them it won't give them more debt. Debt thus becomes a political issue and the government introduces schemes such as help to buy and funding for lending to keep the drug flowing. But ultimately, governments don't control debt, markets do. And when lending dries up, you have people struggling to make ends meet while wages and benefits are falling. In other words: checkmate. I think we are about 12-18 months from this situation. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

9:45am Sat 19 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

weymouthresident wrote:
What many people seem to be overlooking is the fact that renters do not own their 'homes' and therefore have no right to stay in these 'houses' if they don't need a 4 bedroom house when there's only one person living there. Hard working tax payers (and there are many of us in Weymouth and area, despite people saying there are no jobs) are sick of supplementing the non-workers and immigrants. Why should we work all week to save for our 'luxuries' only to have our taxes handed over to those who smoke, drink, own huge TVs, nice cars, holidays, et al, when these are funded from money handed to them without them even stopping to think where the money came from to fund their lifestyles. In days gone by benefits were in the form of voucher for essentials. Maybe this system should be brought back so that scroungers can't use their benefits for other things and then go crying to the system saying they can't afford to feed their families, etc. You can almost guarantee they use their smartphones to call the benefits office when they need to claim more!

My 18 year old decided that she needed to earn some more money. It took 3 days for her to find and land a well paid full-time job in Weymouth proving that it is not difficult to find work if you look. In addition to this she is still working her part-time weekend job.

One of the questions not discussed above is the work ethic of those complaining about losing benefits. Admittedly there are some who cannot work but most just can't be bothered as they know they can live off of the rest of us.
Although not agreeing with all you've written, it is funny how easy it is to find work if you look. My ex wife lives with her boyfriend in a council house. Although she works, he does not. Meanwhile, this chap has got my son, who is going to university in September, a job at a well known tourist attraction in the Mendips, where apparently there is "loads of work". My son does not see the apparent contradiction in the statements "x cannot find a job" and "x has used his contacts to find me a job in a place where they are always looking for staff". So while there are undoubtedly many worthy recipients out there, there are also many scroungers.
Still, i have come to agree with those that say that the rich are more of a problem than the poor.
[quote][p][bold]weymouthresident[/bold] wrote: What many people seem to be overlooking is the fact that renters do not own their 'homes' and therefore have no right to stay in these 'houses' if they don't need a 4 bedroom house when there's only one person living there. Hard working tax payers (and there are many of us in Weymouth and area, despite people saying there are no jobs) are sick of supplementing the non-workers and immigrants. Why should we work all week to save for our 'luxuries' only to have our taxes handed over to those who smoke, drink, own huge TVs, nice cars, holidays, et al, when these are funded from money handed to them without them even stopping to think where the money came from to fund their lifestyles. In days gone by benefits were in the form of voucher for essentials. Maybe this system should be brought back so that scroungers can't use their benefits for other things and then go crying to the system saying they can't afford to feed their families, etc. You can almost guarantee they use their smartphones to call the benefits office when they need to claim more! My 18 year old decided that she needed to earn some more money. It took 3 days for her to find and land a well paid full-time job in Weymouth proving that it is not difficult to find work if you look. In addition to this she is still working her part-time weekend job. One of the questions not discussed above is the work ethic of those complaining about losing benefits. Admittedly there are some who cannot work but most just can't be bothered as they know they can live off of the rest of us.[/p][/quote]Although not agreeing with all you've written, it is funny how easy it is to find work if you look. My ex wife lives with her boyfriend in a council house. Although she works, he does not. Meanwhile, this chap has got my son, who is going to university in September, a job at a well known tourist attraction in the Mendips, where apparently there is "loads of work". My son does not see the apparent contradiction in the statements "x cannot find a job" and "x has used his contacts to find me a job in a place where they are always looking for staff". So while there are undoubtedly many worthy recipients out there, there are also many scroungers. Still, i have come to agree with those that say that the rich are more of a problem than the poor. JamesYoung
  • Score: -3

9:47am Sat 19 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study!
There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study![/p][/quote]There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system. JamesYoung
  • Score: 5

9:47am Sat 19 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study!
There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study![/p][/quote]There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

9:50am Sat 19 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
You make some good points. The last house we rented had three bedrooms. The third was cleverly designed to ensure that you could only fit a bed in one way. The second was supposedly a double, but if you had put a double bed in there, your belongings would need to have been stacked on it. This wasn't some tiny farmworkers cottage from centuries ago, it was a shoddily constructed new build on Poundbury.
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]You make some good points. The last house we rented had three bedrooms. The third was cleverly designed to ensure that you could only fit a bed in one way. The second was supposedly a double, but if you had put a double bed in there, your belongings would need to have been stacked on it. This wasn't some tiny farmworkers cottage from centuries ago, it was a shoddily constructed new build on Poundbury. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

10:44am Sat 19 Jul 14

ino69 says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
If you want an extra room for your superfluous stuff, why shouldn't you pay for it yourself? Bit of an odd argument really.
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]If you want an extra room for your superfluous stuff, why shouldn't you pay for it yourself? Bit of an odd argument really. ino69
  • Score: 7

10:57am Sat 19 Jul 14

PHonnor says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study!
There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.
You also have the problem of developers land banking, sitting on prime housing land and waiting until the time is right (higher house prices) to build them. This shouldn't be allowed to happen, plus when they do build we get small units, paper thin walls, no outside space etc, I would never live in a new build again.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study![/p][/quote]There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.[/p][/quote]You also have the problem of developers land banking, sitting on prime housing land and waiting until the time is right (higher house prices) to build them. This shouldn't be allowed to happen, plus when they do build we get small units, paper thin walls, no outside space etc, I would never live in a new build again. PHonnor
  • Score: 1

11:05am Sat 19 Jul 14

PHonnor says...

JamesYoung wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
trymybest wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.
Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.
Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem.
I think what you are describing is the ultimate and inevitable failure of capitalism, an ideology that until about 2 years ago i was completely sold on.
The only way to make profit in a globalised world with competitors in cheaper regions is to drive down your costs. That means you have to pay your staff less (or, you can get away with paying your staff less as everybody else is too). There is also a tax benefit for employing people on minimum wage for less than 18 hours a week (no NI to pay).
So we end up with a society in which people are earning less than they need to survive, which means that the business in question loses customers and profits and the cycle begins again.
The government can intervene here and fill the gaps in income with state benefits, which are therefore not a benefit for the recipient, but a benefit for businesses, because they can get away with paying lower wages. However, this dishing out of benefits comes at a cost: higher taxes or reallocation of spending from elsewhere. A proportion of those taxes falls on individual taxpayers and a proportion falls on businesses. Larger businesses are able to duck these taxes through creative accounting and using transfer pricing to avoid domestic tax., so the burden falls unfairly on smaller businesses, which ultimately go under.
Consumers still want to spend though, and therefore the take up of debt becomes seen as a human right. You've only got to read sites like mums net to see how angry people get when the bank tells them it won't give them more debt. Debt thus becomes a political issue and the government introduces schemes such as help to buy and funding for lending to keep the drug flowing.
But ultimately, governments don't control debt, markets do. And when lending dries up, you have people struggling to make ends meet while wages and benefits are falling.
In other words: checkmate.
I think we are about 12-18 months from this situation.
We are never going to compete with Asia for cheap labour, not in the long run but whilst we do the government is damaging the country and the welfare bill spirals as we all end up subsidising businesses who work the system. People need to be paid more and companies should be given tax breaks to encourage them to do this, yes it would mean less money in government coffers but less to pay out in benefits ending up neural but with more money in workers pockets.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trymybest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.[/p][/quote]If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.[/p][/quote]Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.[/p][/quote]Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem.[/p][/quote]I think what you are describing is the ultimate and inevitable failure of capitalism, an ideology that until about 2 years ago i was completely sold on. The only way to make profit in a globalised world with competitors in cheaper regions is to drive down your costs. That means you have to pay your staff less (or, you can get away with paying your staff less as everybody else is too). There is also a tax benefit for employing people on minimum wage for less than 18 hours a week (no NI to pay). So we end up with a society in which people are earning less than they need to survive, which means that the business in question loses customers and profits and the cycle begins again. The government can intervene here and fill the gaps in income with state benefits, which are therefore not a benefit for the recipient, but a benefit for businesses, because they can get away with paying lower wages. However, this dishing out of benefits comes at a cost: higher taxes or reallocation of spending from elsewhere. A proportion of those taxes falls on individual taxpayers and a proportion falls on businesses. Larger businesses are able to duck these taxes through creative accounting and using transfer pricing to avoid domestic tax., so the burden falls unfairly on smaller businesses, which ultimately go under. Consumers still want to spend though, and therefore the take up of debt becomes seen as a human right. You've only got to read sites like mums net to see how angry people get when the bank tells them it won't give them more debt. Debt thus becomes a political issue and the government introduces schemes such as help to buy and funding for lending to keep the drug flowing. But ultimately, governments don't control debt, markets do. And when lending dries up, you have people struggling to make ends meet while wages and benefits are falling. In other words: checkmate. I think we are about 12-18 months from this situation.[/p][/quote]We are never going to compete with Asia for cheap labour, not in the long run but whilst we do the government is damaging the country and the welfare bill spirals as we all end up subsidising businesses who work the system. People need to be paid more and companies should be given tax breaks to encourage them to do this, yes it would mean less money in government coffers but less to pay out in benefits ending up neural but with more money in workers pockets. PHonnor
  • Score: 3

11:44am Sat 19 Jul 14

cj07589 says...

PHonnor wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study!
There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.
You also have the problem of developers land banking, sitting on prime housing land and waiting until the time is right (higher house prices) to build them. This shouldn't be allowed to happen, plus when they do build we get small units, paper thin walls, no outside space etc, I would never live in a new build again.
I very much agree with your last comment in particular, we would ask go as far to say we'd now avoid any new build developments full stop.
They generally have terrible small plots sizes with tiny rooms and the hidden legalised fraud 'management charges' and onerous one-sided covenants all best avoided at all costs.

The devils is always in the detail when buying property.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study![/p][/quote]There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.[/p][/quote]You also have the problem of developers land banking, sitting on prime housing land and waiting until the time is right (higher house prices) to build them. This shouldn't be allowed to happen, plus when they do build we get small units, paper thin walls, no outside space etc, I would never live in a new build again.[/p][/quote]I very much agree with your last comment in particular, we would ask go as far to say we'd now avoid any new build developments full stop. They generally have terrible small plots sizes with tiny rooms and the hidden legalised fraud 'management charges' and onerous one-sided covenants all best avoided at all costs. The devils is always in the detail when buying property. cj07589
  • Score: 3

12:29pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
You make some good points. The last house we rented had three bedrooms. The third was cleverly designed to ensure that you could only fit a bed in one way. The second was supposedly a double, but if you had put a double bed in there, your belongings would need to have been stacked on it. This wasn't some tiny farmworkers cottage from centuries ago, it was a shoddily constructed new build on Poundbury.
Themajority of 3 bed semis built between the wars ( a fair proportion of the national housing stock) have at least one room which is only really intended to fit a bed in one way. Difference, was people in the 20s and 30 didn't have vast amounts of stuff they were trying to house at the same time.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]You make some good points. The last house we rented had three bedrooms. The third was cleverly designed to ensure that you could only fit a bed in one way. The second was supposedly a double, but if you had put a double bed in there, your belongings would need to have been stacked on it. This wasn't some tiny farmworkers cottage from centuries ago, it was a shoddily constructed new build on Poundbury.[/p][/quote]Themajority of 3 bed semis built between the wars ( a fair proportion of the national housing stock) have at least one room which is only really intended to fit a bed in one way. Difference, was people in the 20s and 30 didn't have vast amounts of stuff they were trying to house at the same time. Rocksalt
  • Score: 4

12:34pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study!
There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.
I agree that there is enough land in theory, but the reality is different - in no small measure due to the planning laws you mention. That said, those same planning regulations are not just guarded by wealthy individuals (greedy or otherwise) but pretty much anyone who thinks someone is going to build near their home.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]Yes, it would be lovely if there was enough land and housing to enabke everyone to have a spare room, study or whatever, but here isn't. A couple of people I know with goodn jobs live in one room in shared houses. They share the kitchen and bathroom. There is no shared lounge as that has been converted into another bedroom. They are effectively living in something smaller than a bedsit. And yet they are expected to subsidise other people to have spare bedrooms or even, as you suggest, a study![/p][/quote]There is enough land. About 95% of the country lives on just 4% of the land. The problem is not lack of land, it is greed of wealthy individuals and a mediaeval planning system.[/p][/quote]I agree that there is enough land in theory, but the reality is different - in no small measure due to the planning laws you mention. That said, those same planning regulations are not just guarded by wealthy individuals (greedy or otherwise) but pretty much anyone who thinks someone is going to build near their home. Rocksalt
  • Score: 1

12:56pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Itchy Bee says...

7drawers wrote:
A family with 3daughters aged 15/14/13 in theory only need 2 bedrooms.. So they are downsized to such a house.. 1year later they are entitled to 3 bedrooms.. 1year later 4 bedrooms.... Are this family getting moved???
The housing stock it's available
No, a family with three daughters of those ages would have a three bed need, parent(s) in one, two children in the second, one child in the third. They would continue to require three bedrooms until the middle child reached 18, as the eldest could have her own room, the younger two sharing until one reaches adulthood, providing they all still live at home when this happens.
[quote][p][bold]7drawers[/bold] wrote: A family with 3daughters aged 15/14/13 in theory only need 2 bedrooms.. So they are downsized to such a house.. 1year later they are entitled to 3 bedrooms.. 1year later 4 bedrooms.... Are this family getting moved??? The housing stock it's available[/p][/quote]No, a family with three daughters of those ages would have a three bed need, parent(s) in one, two children in the second, one child in the third. They would continue to require three bedrooms until the middle child reached 18, as the eldest could have her own room, the younger two sharing until one reaches adulthood, providing they all still live at home when this happens. Itchy Bee
  • Score: 5

4:03pm Sat 19 Jul 14

westbaywonder says...

Wait until they introduce "Loft Tax" then after that "Garage Tax" and "Garden Tax"
Any problems citizens contact White Dee and she will talk you through it. LOL!
Wait until they introduce "Loft Tax" then after that "Garage Tax" and "Garden Tax" Any problems citizens contact White Dee and she will talk you through it. LOL! westbaywonder
  • Score: 2

5:49pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Suzim says...

southwellman wrote:
Bollard wrote:
southwellman wrote:
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground!
Do you not think it was hard in the 90,s I was earning less that 10k a year and the house I brought was more than 4 times my income.. It was hard but I did not expect anyone to bail me out and I had my priorities right.. not have a bucket full of kids and sit around expecting the government to give me a living...
Agree totally
[quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bollard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too![/p][/quote]When was this? When the houses were affordable? I know so many hard working young families who cannot afford to but because they have to pay so much in rent that they cannot save up a deposit. The market is completly controlled by 40 / 50 + year olds who got lucky buying up cheap properties in the 80s and 90s. The bottom will fall out of the housing market eventually as so few can get on the ladder and interest rates are bound to go up at some point as we will end up with an even shakier coalition at the next election. Good luck up there on your moral high ground![/p][/quote]Do you not think it was hard in the 90,s I was earning less that 10k a year and the house I brought was more than 4 times my income.. It was hard but I did not expect anyone to bail me out and I had my priorities right.. not have a bucket full of kids and sit around expecting the government to give me a living...[/p][/quote]Agree totally Suzim
  • Score: 1

5:52pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

I think we also need to consider health issues here - and possible future costs to the NHS, ALSO funded from taxes. If people are depressed by their standard of living/quality of life, it can impact upon both physical and mental health, thereby incurring NHS costs to treat them. The facile argument that if a person needs a certain modicum of cargo to keep them contented, then they should pay extra rent in order to have the space for all their property is just plain ignorant. If houses cost what my father paid for a new build in Beaumont Avenue in the early fifties, I would be happy to buy my own rez. - especially if I could have the old family home back - but it's probably now worth 150,000 times what HE paid for it, and there's no way I could or would pay THAT much. My V-twin cruiser cost about £5,500 as far as I recall, at the beginning of 1999, but I'd probably be very lucky to get £2,000 for it today - particularly having regard to the rubbish-quality chromework the world seems to have accepted without demur these days. Why should this gross and obscene difference exist ?? Houses deteriorate as much as anything else !!
Many people will no doubt recall Megascum's sneering comment directed at the LABOR tory party: "Isn't thet TYPICAL of the socialists - equal shares of misery for all??!!" Today, with Meggy now dead and buried (may she rust in peace !!) we still seem to have those among us who want nothing more than to see misery equally shared out, especially among those unfortunates who find themselves forced to sell their lives for a pittance. The nasty people who advocate this unenviable fate for their fellows are either TORIES who own businesses and corporations and are currently intent on wiping ALL other species from the planet for financial gain (Sorry, David CaMORON - I never DID believe your MASSIVE, Hitleresque LIE in 2013, when you said that we should not regard business as the enemy of the environment - a person would REALLY need to be in a hypnotised trance to believe THAT one !!), or they are the dullard sheeple whose minds are so sluggish that they can spend eight hours or more a day in low remunerated drudgery without feeling stifled or ground down by their lot. The former thinks the world owes him/her a living in the form of an endless supply of worker drones to fill his/her honeycomb with the sweet, golden stuff at the cost of their own sanity, wellbeing and happiness - and the latter thinks everyone should share the daily misery of employment just because THEY themselves do not find it stifling, boring, undignified and soul-destroying, or yearn to spend their days in more spiritually rewarding enterprises..
I think we also need to consider health issues here - and possible future costs to the NHS, ALSO funded from taxes. If people are depressed by their standard of living/quality of life, it can impact upon both physical and mental health, thereby incurring NHS costs to treat them. The facile argument that if a person needs a certain modicum of cargo to keep them contented, then they should pay extra rent in order to have the space for all their property is just plain ignorant. If houses cost what my father paid for a new build in Beaumont Avenue in the early fifties, I would be happy to buy my own rez. - especially if I could have the old family home back - but it's probably now worth 150,000 times what HE paid for it, and there's no way I could or would pay THAT much. My V-twin cruiser cost about £5,500 as far as I recall, at the beginning of 1999, but I'd probably be very lucky to get £2,000 for it today - particularly having regard to the rubbish-quality chromework the world seems to have accepted without demur these days. Why should this gross and obscene difference exist ?? Houses deteriorate as much as anything else !! Many people will no doubt recall Megascum's sneering comment directed at the LABOR tory party: "Isn't thet TYPICAL of the socialists - equal shares of misery for all??!!" Today, with Meggy now dead and buried (may she rust in peace !!) we still seem to have those among us who want nothing more than to see misery equally shared out, especially among those unfortunates who find themselves forced to sell their lives for a pittance. The nasty people who advocate this unenviable fate for their fellows are either TORIES who own businesses and corporations and are currently intent on wiping ALL other species from the planet for financial gain (Sorry, David CaMORON - I never DID believe your MASSIVE, Hitleresque LIE in 2013, when you said that we should not regard business as the enemy of the environment - a person would REALLY need to be in a hypnotised trance to believe THAT one !!), or they are the dullard sheeple whose minds are so sluggish that they can spend eight hours or more a day in low remunerated drudgery without feeling stifled or ground down by their lot. The former thinks the world owes him/her a living in the form of an endless supply of worker drones to fill his/her honeycomb with the sweet, golden stuff at the cost of their own sanity, wellbeing and happiness - and the latter thinks everyone should share the daily misery of employment just because THEY themselves do not find it stifling, boring, undignified and soul-destroying, or yearn to spend their days in more spiritually rewarding enterprises.. Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: -6

11:23pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

Oh, yeah - and while we're on this perennial subject of employment, if I'd been one of those people who found themselves out of work when el governmente (or one of its branches) wound up Southern Television many years ago (its franchise ran out, or some such 'carp' as that, we were told !!), I'd have turned round to them and said: 'Right - YOU put me out of work, doing a decent job that I enjoyed, so YOU keep me for the rest of my life, alright ?? !!' Don't suppose THAT one would have washed, any more than saying: 'I've got my own tipi, Horse and bow and arrows, and could live off the land, like a Human Being - but YOU'VE seized all the hunting rights for yourselves, for fun, and made it illegal for me to be able to live properly, so YOU keep me !!' Way I see it, you take away a person's livelihood, whether in a DECENT, interesting job or living as a hunter/gatherer, and YOU become morally responsible for that person's upkeep..
And if el governmente were SO concerned about unemployment in this cuntry, WHY do they permit all the immigration from E Europa, Pakistan and other islamic places ?? I've never quite been able to grasp what claim Pakistani citizens have to come and settle here. Don't get me wrong - I LIKE to see a beautiful face and some nice, black hair amongst the veritable SEA of Saxons that surrounds one every day - I just don't quite understand their claim to residence here..
Oh, yeah - and while we're on this perennial subject of employment, if I'd been one of those people who found themselves out of work when el governmente (or one of its branches) wound up Southern Television many years ago (its franchise ran out, or some such 'carp' as that, we were told !!), I'd have turned round to them and said: 'Right - YOU put me out of work, doing a decent job that I enjoyed, so YOU keep me for the rest of my life, alright ?? !!' Don't suppose THAT one would have washed, any more than saying: 'I've got my own tipi, Horse and bow and arrows, and could live off the land, like a Human Being - but YOU'VE seized all the hunting rights for yourselves, for fun, and made it illegal for me to be able to live properly, so YOU keep me !!' Way I see it, you take away a person's livelihood, whether in a DECENT, interesting job or living as a hunter/gatherer, and YOU become morally responsible for that person's upkeep.. And if el governmente were SO concerned about unemployment in this cuntry, WHY do they permit all the immigration from E Europa, Pakistan and other islamic places ?? I've never quite been able to grasp what claim Pakistani citizens have to come and settle here. Don't get me wrong - I LIKE to see a beautiful face and some nice, black hair amongst the veritable SEA of Saxons that surrounds one every day - I just don't quite understand their claim to residence here.. Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: -3

9:19am Sun 20 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
Oh, yeah - and while we're on this perennial subject of employment, if I'd been one of those people who found themselves out of work when el governmente (or one of its branches) wound up Southern Television many years ago (its franchise ran out, or some such 'carp' as that, we were told !!), I'd have turned round to them and said: 'Right - YOU put me out of work, doing a decent job that I enjoyed, so YOU keep me for the rest of my life, alright ?? !!' Don't suppose THAT one would have washed, any more than saying: 'I've got my own tipi, Horse and bow and arrows, and could live off the land, like a Human Being - but YOU'VE seized all the hunting rights for yourselves, for fun, and made it illegal for me to be able to live properly, so YOU keep me !!' Way I see it, you take away a person's livelihood, whether in a DECENT, interesting job or living as a hunter/gatherer, and YOU become morally responsible for that person's upkeep..
And if el governmente were SO concerned about unemployment in this cuntry, WHY do they permit all the immigration from E Europa, Pakistan and other islamic places ?? I've never quite been able to grasp what claim Pakistani citizens have to come and settle here. Don't get me wrong - I LIKE to see a beautiful face and some nice, black hair amongst the veritable SEA of Saxons that surrounds one every day - I just don't quite understand their claim to residence here..
Southern Television lost the franchise because it wasn't very good. If ypur last two posts are indicative of the quality of their output then I am not surprised they lost the franchise. And yes,it was a long time ago 1981 !
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: Oh, yeah - and while we're on this perennial subject of employment, if I'd been one of those people who found themselves out of work when el governmente (or one of its branches) wound up Southern Television many years ago (its franchise ran out, or some such 'carp' as that, we were told !!), I'd have turned round to them and said: 'Right - YOU put me out of work, doing a decent job that I enjoyed, so YOU keep me for the rest of my life, alright ?? !!' Don't suppose THAT one would have washed, any more than saying: 'I've got my own tipi, Horse and bow and arrows, and could live off the land, like a Human Being - but YOU'VE seized all the hunting rights for yourselves, for fun, and made it illegal for me to be able to live properly, so YOU keep me !!' Way I see it, you take away a person's livelihood, whether in a DECENT, interesting job or living as a hunter/gatherer, and YOU become morally responsible for that person's upkeep.. And if el governmente were SO concerned about unemployment in this cuntry, WHY do they permit all the immigration from E Europa, Pakistan and other islamic places ?? I've never quite been able to grasp what claim Pakistani citizens have to come and settle here. Don't get me wrong - I LIKE to see a beautiful face and some nice, black hair amongst the veritable SEA of Saxons that surrounds one every day - I just don't quite understand their claim to residence here..[/p][/quote]Southern Television lost the franchise because it wasn't very good. If ypur last two posts are indicative of the quality of their output then I am not surprised they lost the franchise. And yes,it was a long time ago 1981 ! Rocksalt
  • Score: 7

9:59am Sun 20 Jul 14

cosmick says...

What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date.
The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out.
But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,.
Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce.
Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing.
The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time.
2015 may be our last chance.
I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.
What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date. The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out. But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,. Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce. Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing. The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time. 2015 may be our last chance. I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS. cosmick
  • Score: 6

10:19am Sun 20 Jul 14

trymybest says...

PHonnor wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
trymybest wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Fred Kite wrote:
So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.
I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all.
It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed.
In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody.
Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.
If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.
Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.
Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem.
I think what you are describing is the ultimate and inevitable failure of capitalism, an ideology that until about 2 years ago i was completely sold on.
The only way to make profit in a globalised world with competitors in cheaper regions is to drive down your costs. That means you have to pay your staff less (or, you can get away with paying your staff less as everybody else is too). There is also a tax benefit for employing people on minimum wage for less than 18 hours a week (no NI to pay).
So we end up with a society in which people are earning less than they need to survive, which means that the business in question loses customers and profits and the cycle begins again.
The government can intervene here and fill the gaps in income with state benefits, which are therefore not a benefit for the recipient, but a benefit for businesses, because they can get away with paying lower wages. However, this dishing out of benefits comes at a cost: higher taxes or reallocation of spending from elsewhere. A proportion of those taxes falls on individual taxpayers and a proportion falls on businesses. Larger businesses are able to duck these taxes through creative accounting and using transfer pricing to avoid domestic tax., so the burden falls unfairly on smaller businesses, which ultimately go under.
Consumers still want to spend though, and therefore the take up of debt becomes seen as a human right. You've only got to read sites like mums net to see how angry people get when the bank tells them it won't give them more debt. Debt thus becomes a political issue and the government introduces schemes such as help to buy and funding for lending to keep the drug flowing.
But ultimately, governments don't control debt, markets do. And when lending dries up, you have people struggling to make ends meet while wages and benefits are falling.
In other words: checkmate.
I think we are about 12-18 months from this situation.
We are never going to compete with Asia for cheap labour, not in the long run but whilst we do the government is damaging the country and the welfare bill spirals as we all end up subsidising businesses who work the system. People need to be paid more and companies should be given tax breaks to encourage them to do this, yes it would mean less money in government coffers but less to pay out in benefits ending up neural but with more money in workers pockets.
The local supermarket in LIttlemoor is advertising for workers to work for ten hours per week to be flexible with the hours to the point they can't hold down a second job, but still have to sign on at the job centre for there N.I contributions to be made and benefits. As they are so called employed they are off the employment list hence the number are coming down, but as they are still signing on that's what you call fiddling the employment figures. In stead off the unions looking to their past at Puddletown they should take a trip to the local Supermarket and really see how the working man is suffering TODAY.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trymybest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred Kite[/bold] wrote: So the spare room subsidy applies to social housing so those in the private sector can still receive full housing benefit even if they are deemed to over occupy. If the private rented sector is exempt why is the spare room subsidy applied to tenants who are only managed by a housing association, I am thinking here of the situation on New Poundbury where Prince Charles is the landlord and Guinness the agent.[/p][/quote]I think a bigger question is why the government is providing housing benefit at all. It is, after all, a taxpayer subsidy of private greed. In a free market, prices settle on what people can afford to pay. If the government withdrew housing benefit rents would fall, benefiting everybody. Granted, you couldn't completely withdraw it but the principle holds true.[/p][/quote]If working families were paid a decent living wage then housing benefit wouldn't be needed, but employment is down but it's the minimum wage earners driving it who need the help.[/p][/quote]Most working family's on low wages get working tax credit, child credit on top of the family allowance there is no need to receive housing benefit on top, l do believe that a hard working family should be paid a living wage as a minimum and given at least a 35 hour working week to support their family, not part time work of 10 hours per week on minimum wage.[/p][/quote]Whatever the benefits are if you have 2 adults working full time in a household they shouldn't need to claim benefits of any kind as their income should be sufficient, unfortunately this is not the case, we heard yesterday that employment is up but not wages, that's because the jobs being created are minimum wage and part time jobs with the likelihood they will need benefits, and there is the problem.[/p][/quote]I think what you are describing is the ultimate and inevitable failure of capitalism, an ideology that until about 2 years ago i was completely sold on. The only way to make profit in a globalised world with competitors in cheaper regions is to drive down your costs. That means you have to pay your staff less (or, you can get away with paying your staff less as everybody else is too). There is also a tax benefit for employing people on minimum wage for less than 18 hours a week (no NI to pay). So we end up with a society in which people are earning less than they need to survive, which means that the business in question loses customers and profits and the cycle begins again. The government can intervene here and fill the gaps in income with state benefits, which are therefore not a benefit for the recipient, but a benefit for businesses, because they can get away with paying lower wages. However, this dishing out of benefits comes at a cost: higher taxes or reallocation of spending from elsewhere. A proportion of those taxes falls on individual taxpayers and a proportion falls on businesses. Larger businesses are able to duck these taxes through creative accounting and using transfer pricing to avoid domestic tax., so the burden falls unfairly on smaller businesses, which ultimately go under. Consumers still want to spend though, and therefore the take up of debt becomes seen as a human right. You've only got to read sites like mums net to see how angry people get when the bank tells them it won't give them more debt. Debt thus becomes a political issue and the government introduces schemes such as help to buy and funding for lending to keep the drug flowing. But ultimately, governments don't control debt, markets do. And when lending dries up, you have people struggling to make ends meet while wages and benefits are falling. In other words: checkmate. I think we are about 12-18 months from this situation.[/p][/quote]We are never going to compete with Asia for cheap labour, not in the long run but whilst we do the government is damaging the country and the welfare bill spirals as we all end up subsidising businesses who work the system. People need to be paid more and companies should be given tax breaks to encourage them to do this, yes it would mean less money in government coffers but less to pay out in benefits ending up neural but with more money in workers pockets.[/p][/quote]The local supermarket in LIttlemoor is advertising for workers to work for ten hours per week to be flexible with the hours to the point they can't hold down a second job, but still have to sign on at the job centre for there N.I contributions to be made and benefits. As they are so called employed they are off the employment list hence the number are coming down, but as they are still signing on that's what you call fiddling the employment figures. In stead off the unions looking to their past at Puddletown they should take a trip to the local Supermarket and really see how the working man is suffering TODAY. trymybest
  • Score: 1

2:29pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

cosmick wrote:
What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date.
The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out.
But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,.
Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce.
Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing.
The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time.
2015 may be our last chance.
I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.
EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work.
[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date. The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out. But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,. Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce. Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing. The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time. 2015 may be our last chance. I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.[/p][/quote]EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work. Rocksalt
  • Score: 4

2:42pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

UsernameWithheld wrote:
IT IS NOT A TAX ON BEDROOMS!!!!!!!!!!

YOU RECEIVE FREE MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR A RENTED HOUSE, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BOWING AT THE TAXPAYERS FEET WITH THANKS FOR PAYING THERE RENT FOR MANY YEARS IN THE PAST AND INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THE DROP BY 14% FOR 1 EXTRA BEDROOM AND 25% FOR 2 EXTRA BEDROOMS ISN'T A TAX IT IS SIMPLY THE TAXPAYER SAYING THEY WILL NOT GIVE PEOPLE FREE ROOMS JUST LIKE THERE NOT GIVEN FREE ROOMS WHEN THEY BUY A HOUSE.

MONEY DOESN'T COME FROM NOWHERE AND I SIMPLY THINK THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY GET.

NOTE: I AM NOT AGAINST HELPING THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO LIVE BUT THEY SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN AND SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE.
If you have a point to make feel free to make it, but please don't shout, it's considered rude where I come from.
[quote][p][bold]UsernameWithheld[/bold] wrote: IT IS NOT A TAX ON BEDROOMS!!!!!!!!!! YOU RECEIVE FREE MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR A RENTED HOUSE, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BOWING AT THE TAXPAYERS FEET WITH THANKS FOR PAYING THERE RENT FOR MANY YEARS IN THE PAST AND INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THE DROP BY 14% FOR 1 EXTRA BEDROOM AND 25% FOR 2 EXTRA BEDROOMS ISN'T A TAX IT IS SIMPLY THE TAXPAYER SAYING THEY WILL NOT GIVE PEOPLE FREE ROOMS JUST LIKE THERE NOT GIVEN FREE ROOMS WHEN THEY BUY A HOUSE. MONEY DOESN'T COME FROM NOWHERE AND I SIMPLY THINK THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY GET. NOTE: I AM NOT AGAINST HELPING THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO LIVE BUT THEY SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN AND SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE.[/p][/quote]If you have a point to make feel free to make it, but please don't shout, it's considered rude where I come from. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

2:53pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Hippyhooker wrote:
Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.
Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up!
I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy.
I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it.
While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move.
A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected.
However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.
Surely the British obsession with owning a home doesn't help the situation? I can't think of anything more stupid than people who get a deposit for a house paying less on a mortgage than they'd be paying in rent in the private sector. Also the housing market was badly screwed up by the late Baroness Thatcher. Governments since have had 30 odd years to sort things out and done precisely nothing, perfectly summed up by James' last sentence.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hippyhooker[/bold] wrote: Yet again the people of Dorset show their lack of knowledge and fail to show any compassion whatsoever, the vast majority of people hit by these cuts ARE people in employment and the disabled, but hey lets be smug on our high horses and just ignore the facts.[/p][/quote]Which part of 'pay for your own luxuries' don't you understand? have some dam compassion for the bloody mugs tax payers who constantly go without luxuries so you lot can exploit your inflated perception of entitlements. It's not on and most of us mugs and sick to the back teeth of paying for everybody else's knees up![/p][/quote]I think there is an element of this. It's noticeable that the Echo trots out cases who are genuinely deserving of help, rather than the many who are simply work shy. I suppose this is the problem with a one size fits all system. You can't fix the problem because there are always a few that get caught up in it. While i feel desperately sorry for the lady who has lost her husband, there are two sides to this story, and the other is that the government has to use state resources to best effect. In the present circumstances, that means that houses should be awarded depending on need, which means a disabled woman in a 4 bed house would need to move. A far better system would be one in which housing was affordable for all, and state owned social housing was expanded enough so that those in need were protected. However, with a parliament full of buy to let landlords, we are not likely to see that any time soon,.[/p][/quote]Surely the British obsession with owning a home doesn't help the situation? I can't think of anything more stupid than people who get a deposit for a house paying less on a mortgage than they'd be paying in rent in the private sector. Also the housing market was badly screwed up by the late Baroness Thatcher. Governments since have had 30 odd years to sort things out and done precisely nothing, perfectly summed up by James' last sentence. breamoreboy
  • Score: -5

3:06pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

southwellman wrote:
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
Not a bad idea, but I most point out that just 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are not working, with 33% going in Working Tax Credits, pretty much all of the rest on pensions. Of that 3% I've no clue as to how much goes to the "free loading scroungers" and how much to those like myself who've taken a clobbering. Given the choice of being fit, healthy and paying higher rate income tax in a career in engineering and computing that I thoroughly enjoyed, or living on £105/week ESA, what do you think I'd rather be doing?
[quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too![/p][/quote]Not a bad idea, but I most point out that just 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are not working, with 33% going in Working Tax Credits, pretty much all of the rest on pensions. Of that 3% I've no clue as to how much goes to the "free loading scroungers" and how much to those like myself who've taken a clobbering. Given the choice of being fit, healthy and paying higher rate income tax in a career in engineering and computing that I thoroughly enjoyed, or living on £105/week ESA, what do you think I'd rather be doing? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

marabout wrote:
A WEYMOUTH widow who has been hit by the Bedroom Tax said she would rather die than leave her home.
The woman, who is disabled and told her story to the Dorset Echo on condition of anonymity, has had her housing benefit docked by 25 per cent after her husband died and her son moved out.








Madam - You cannot live in a four bedroomed house on your own when there are people desperate for this house. Stop being so selfish.
As a lot of money has been spent to allow the lady to live there, why not share the house with similarly disabled people? The lady gets to stay and somebody else in need gets helped out. Or is this type of compromise far too difficult for 21st century Britain to handle?
[quote][p][bold]marabout[/bold] wrote: A WEYMOUTH widow who has been hit by the Bedroom Tax said she would rather die than leave her home. The woman, who is disabled and told her story to the Dorset Echo on condition of anonymity, has had her housing benefit docked by 25 per cent after her husband died and her son moved out. Madam - You cannot live in a four bedroomed house on your own when there are people desperate for this house. Stop being so selfish.[/p][/quote]As a lot of money has been spent to allow the lady to live there, why not share the house with similarly disabled people? The lady gets to stay and somebody else in need gets helped out. Or is this type of compromise far too difficult for 21st century Britain to handle? breamoreboy
  • Score: 5

3:23pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Get a grip wrote:
Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub.

Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.
Why do we need to buy a house? Continental Europe manages quite happily in rented accommodation so why can't we? Until we see a house as a place to shelter us from the elements and not a way to make money, the disastrous housing policies we currently have will continue to cause misery for many low paid workers.
[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub. Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.[/p][/quote]Why do we need to buy a house? Continental Europe manages quite happily in rented accommodation so why can't we? Until we see a house as a place to shelter us from the elements and not a way to make money, the disastrous housing policies we currently have will continue to cause misery for many low paid workers. breamoreboy
  • Score: 4

3:25pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Bert Fry wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
MadMicke12 wrote:
Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages.

I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security.

When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money.

So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning.

Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all.

One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so.

If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people.

When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country.

Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet.

The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants.

The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn



e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits.

I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.
If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector.
I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down.
But too many of the jobs crated in the private sector are minimum wage and insecure. Exactly the type of person forced to claim housing benefit. Force major employers to pay a Living wage and the need for housing benefit would diminish.
Forcing major employers to pay UK tax would also help the situation, with Google and Starbucks the first two names to my mind.
[quote][p][bold]Bert Fry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages. I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security. When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money. So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning. Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all. One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so. If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people. When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country. Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet. The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants. The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits. I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.[/p][/quote]If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector. I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down.[/p][/quote]But too many of the jobs crated in the private sector are minimum wage and insecure. Exactly the type of person forced to claim housing benefit. Force major employers to pay a Living wage and the need for housing benefit would diminish.[/p][/quote]Forcing major employers to pay UK tax would also help the situation, with Google and Starbucks the first two names to my mind. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

3:32pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Noidear wrote:
Let's just get rid of this liberal society we've become , it costs to much?.
I think the people who fought in WWII and gave the Labour party overwhelming support in the drive to the welfare state would object to that. Admittedly in many ways we've gone too far, but in a country packed full of talent, surely it's not too difficult to find the middle ground?
[quote][p][bold]Noidear[/bold] wrote: Let's just get rid of this liberal society we've become , it costs to much?.[/p][/quote]I think the people who fought in WWII and gave the Labour party overwhelming support in the drive to the welfare state would object to that. Admittedly in many ways we've gone too far, but in a country packed full of talent, surely it's not too difficult to find the middle ground? breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

3:43pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer.
It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them.
When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..
You make some good points. The last house we rented had three bedrooms. The third was cleverly designed to ensure that you could only fit a bed in one way. The second was supposedly a double, but if you had put a double bed in there, your belongings would need to have been stacked on it. This wasn't some tiny farmworkers cottage from centuries ago, it was a shoddily constructed new build on Poundbury.
Apparently companies specialise in making small sized furniture for show homes. You see the bedrooms, think great we'll have that, and when you move in your furniture doesn't actually fit in. As Arthur Daley used to say "Nice little earner", awful pun quite deliberate.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to rooms other than galley, bathroom and lounge as 'bedrooms' !! The tories, whether tory tories, labour tories, liberal tories, ukip tories, independent tories or monster raving loony party tories all seem to share this nasty, cynical view that if you are/have been a wage-slave, (ALL of whom are paid only starvation wages) then you will not have any cargo to speak of, and will therefore not need any extra space in which to store it. I have an Italian studio easel worth about £500-600, bought in the 1980s, which I will probably never be able to use because there is other cargo stacked in front of it. I also have a fairly large and extensive library - probably well in excess of 1,000 books - some of which have to be stacked on the floor, because my c60-70 feet of shelf-space is fully utilized. Judging from some of the atrocious spelling and grammar evidenced by a number of commenters above, I seriously doubt that most of them have more than a book or two in their residence, and would probably only read any kind of book if forced to do so at gunpoint. Yet these selfsame people are presuming to tell others how to order their lives, and to spend the Lion's share of their lives in miserable toil in order to make some TORY or other the richer. It is an invidious system that forces young (and not so young) people to chase after derisively-paid employment - and the more so when the TORY to whom they are applying for wage-slavery will invariably take the negative path by desperately trying to find any reason under the sun NOT to employ them. When people expect, in an allegedly civilised (syphilised ??!!) society to have something slightly larger than a shoebox in which to live, I do not feel they are being unreasonable. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with just one more room, to serve as combined library, study and studio - leaving my lounge clutter-free for normal lounge activities. As for costs, the British need to abandon their very odd and almost unique view of living space as some kind of investment or money-printing machine and, instead, see it for what it is - a place to live and have a certain basic quality of life. Few people, I should imagine, are asking for a home with four reception rooms, servants' quarters, billiard room, mens' smoking room, gun room, music room, library, theater, extensive kitchens and a dozen REAL bedrooms - plus, of course, stables out back. All that is being asked for is rooms commensurate with one's interests which, for the vast majority of people in the real world, would probably only entail one additional room apart from lounge and bedroom. Many people, of limited interests, would not, of course, need that extra room..[/p][/quote]You make some good points. The last house we rented had three bedrooms. The third was cleverly designed to ensure that you could only fit a bed in one way. The second was supposedly a double, but if you had put a double bed in there, your belongings would need to have been stacked on it. This wasn't some tiny farmworkers cottage from centuries ago, it was a shoddily constructed new build on Poundbury.[/p][/quote]Apparently companies specialise in making small sized furniture for show homes. You see the bedrooms, think great we'll have that, and when you move in your furniture doesn't actually fit in. As Arthur Daley used to say "Nice little earner", awful pun quite deliberate. breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

9:54pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

breamoreboy wrote:
southwellman wrote:
Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too!
Not a bad idea, but I most point out that just 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are not working, with 33% going in Working Tax Credits, pretty much all of the rest on pensions. Of that 3% I've no clue as to how much goes to the "free loading scroungers" and how much to those like myself who've taken a clobbering. Given the choice of being fit, healthy and paying higher rate income tax in a career in engineering and computing that I thoroughly enjoyed, or living on £105/week ESA, what do you think I'd rather be doing?
I take it that the down vote indicates readers believe that people should be on JSA and not working?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southwellman[/bold] wrote: Here is an idea you free loading scroungers. get a job and get a mrotgage.. just like I had too![/p][/quote]Not a bad idea, but I most point out that just 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are not working, with 33% going in Working Tax Credits, pretty much all of the rest on pensions. Of that 3% I've no clue as to how much goes to the "free loading scroungers" and how much to those like myself who've taken a clobbering. Given the choice of being fit, healthy and paying higher rate income tax in a career in engineering and computing that I thoroughly enjoyed, or living on £105/week ESA, what do you think I'd rather be doing?[/p][/quote]I take it that the down vote indicates readers believe that people should be on JSA and not working? breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

9:57pm Sun 20 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Bert Fry wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
MadMicke12 wrote:
Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages.

I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security.

When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money.

So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning.

Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all.

One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so.

If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people.

When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country.

Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet.

The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants.

The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn




e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits.

I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.
If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector.
I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down.
But too many of the jobs crated in the private sector are minimum wage and insecure. Exactly the type of person forced to claim housing benefit. Force major employers to pay a Living wage and the need for housing benefit would diminish.
Forcing major employers to pay UK tax would also help the situation, with Google and Starbucks the first two names to my mind.
Another down vote indicating that readers do not want companies paying tax. What do you want?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bert Fry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. The people of Dorset are showing their true colours in these pages. I see people saying get off your **** and get a job, when there are very few jobs in this area of Dorset, those that are there are seasonal and **** poor pay, and there is no job security. When Cameron/Clegg brought in all these cutbacks and restrictions on benefits, they said that whilst the public sector would shrink, the private sector would prosper - what utter ****. When you cut back on the expenditure by the public sector, you take away the income that would have gone to the private sector, which results in at least, job losses, but at worst, that private company has to close as it is not making money. So, the businesses close or make staff redundant, which results in those who have lost their jobs, and yes, some of those will be close relations to those of you condemning those on benefits, they will eventually have to sign on when their redundancy payments run out, if they were lucky enough to be made redundant instead of just having the business shut it's doors without warning. Half of the working population in Dorset is on either part time or zero hours contracts, so the workers are duty bound to apply for benefits, both social and housing. But, if you are on zero hours contracts, you might get nothing at all. One of the main problems, of course, is that there are so few places available to move smaller families to in order to free up the the bigger accommodations for bigger families. With all these foreigners coming in from the EU, our housing is being taken up even more by those, so that the real people who should get housing, the British nationals, are unable to do so. If the Labour government had not opened the doors to the EU economic migrants/benefit scroungers, then there would be plenty of room available for housing our own people. When I watch a TV program where some polish man who has come here says, I am only here to earn £40,000 then I am going back to Poland to build my own house there. Why should we be subsidising their aspirations of a better life back in their own country. Time and again, I see people in these comments say the same as Jeremy Kyle says to some of his guests, got off you butt and go get a job. This is disgusting when there are so few jobs out there to be got, those that you do go for, there are 150 other applicants, and the pay is so poor that the person has to claim some form of benefit anyway to make ends meet. The cause of all this misery is government ideology pursued in such a fashion that it does not care who gets hurt. Yes, the benefits system is not fit for purpose, but that is not the fault of the claimants, that is down to government and policies brought about by this and previous governments. When I see people that don't need the money, getting child benefits and cold weather winter fuel payments that they don't need because they are wealthy, I get annoyed, and that is what you should be looking at. It is a fact that the great majority of the welfare budget in this country is spent on Pensions, Pension Credit and other age related benefits. Only 30% of the benefits bill goes to the people who claim JSA or ESA or Income Support. Yes, there is an amount goes on housing benefits but that is only about 8%. Council tax does not come into it as such because that is not decided by Central Government and Central Government pay very little into it in way of revenue support grants. The only people to blame for this mess is this and previous governments, so stop slagging off the claimants, the great majority of whom, would love to work and support themselves. Point your vitriolic comments at Cameron/Clegg/Osborn e/Duncan-Smith, and those idiots of the previous Labour administration who allowed all this to go on unchecked. But if you take pensions and pension credits away from the DWP budget, just see how little per capita is spent on all the other benefits. I am now diving for cover as the slagging off comes back to me, but I will argue any decent constructive comments. Have a nice day everyone.[/p][/quote]If you look at employment statistics, you'll find that Osborne was right to say that the private sector would prosper. More jobs have been created there than were lost in the public sector. I point this out as a matter of interest rather than to dispute your argument, since the whole bally lot is built on a house of cards (credit cards) and the only way is down.[/p][/quote]But too many of the jobs crated in the private sector are minimum wage and insecure. Exactly the type of person forced to claim housing benefit. Force major employers to pay a Living wage and the need for housing benefit would diminish.[/p][/quote]Forcing major employers to pay UK tax would also help the situation, with Google and Starbucks the first two names to my mind.[/p][/quote]Another down vote indicating that readers do not want companies paying tax. What do you want? breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

11:37pm Sun 20 Jul 14

cosmick says...

Rocksalt wrote:
cosmick wrote:
What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date.
The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out.
But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,.
Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce.
Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing.
The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time.
2015 may be our last chance.
I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.
EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work.
The impact of E/U migrants in Weymouth and Portland at the momment may be not noticed much. But it will. You do not know the percentage of E/U migrants claiming against the percentage of the British population.
What i do know is that on the tv last night our good old E/Umigrants had come just to milk us, and very good at it they are. My point is that if we stopped these people taking the p ***, there would be more money in the pot to help people on low wages who work very hard and i do not object to them having help.
The ponces and the groups that use the system should be stopped right away.
Iwould think that most people in Weymouth and Portland have jobs that pay below the average wage in this country.
E/U migrants should not be able to get benefits for at least 5 years.
The 30,000000 pounds that get payed out to E/U migrants for child benefit per year when the kids have never been here should be stopped.
Any migrant that makes no profit for our country should be sent back
where they came from.
Any E/U migrant who wants to come to this country with a someone who needs care or money should be refused.
Shut the door stop the problem getting worse, then we can start to sort things out.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date. The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out. But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,. Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce. Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing. The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time. 2015 may be our last chance. I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.[/p][/quote]EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work.[/p][/quote]The impact of E/U migrants in Weymouth and Portland at the momment may be not noticed much. But it will. You do not know the percentage of E/U migrants claiming against the percentage of the British population. What i do know is that on the tv last night our good old E/Umigrants had come just to milk us, and very good at it they are. My point is that if we stopped these people taking the p ***, there would be more money in the pot to help people on low wages who work very hard and i do not object to them having help. The ponces and the groups that use the system should be stopped right away. Iwould think that most people in Weymouth and Portland have jobs that pay below the average wage in this country. E/U migrants should not be able to get benefits for at least 5 years. The 30,000000 pounds that get payed out to E/U migrants for child benefit per year when the kids have never been here should be stopped. Any migrant that makes no profit for our country should be sent back where they came from. Any E/U migrant who wants to come to this country with a someone who needs care or money should be refused. Shut the door stop the problem getting worse, then we can start to sort things out. cosmick
  • Score: 6

9:32am Mon 21 Jul 14

Preston North End says...

The 'cost of living crisis' could be more usefully defined as a 'not enough houses have been built crisis'.

Imagine how different life would be if your rent or mortgage was half what it is now. You wouldn't need to be on double average national income, as now, to have a decent standard of living.
The 'cost of living crisis' could be more usefully defined as a 'not enough houses have been built crisis'. Imagine how different life would be if your rent or mortgage was half what it is now. You wouldn't need to be on double average national income, as now, to have a decent standard of living. Preston North End
  • Score: 1

12:05pm Mon 21 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Preston North End wrote:
The 'cost of living crisis' could be more usefully defined as a 'not enough houses have been built crisis'.

Imagine how different life would be if your rent or mortgage was half what it is now. You wouldn't need to be on double average national income, as now, to have a decent standard of living.
The cost of living crisis could be more usefully defined as a "too much lax lending crisis".
The population grew between 2008 and 2010. House prices didn't. If we were short of houses, they should have done.
Rents are only increasing because landlords are paying ever more for their properties. However, even with that upward pressure, they grew less than the rate of inflation last year.
Honestly, i'm sure the banks would love to perpetuate the myth that it is population growth that is driving house prices. It isn't. It's the ability to borrow more.
I laugh at all the people i see buying homes at the top end of the affordability bracket, boasting to each other about how much debt they've got in.
It will end in tears.
Affordability will return.
It always does.
[quote][p][bold]Preston North End[/bold] wrote: The 'cost of living crisis' could be more usefully defined as a 'not enough houses have been built crisis'. Imagine how different life would be if your rent or mortgage was half what it is now. You wouldn't need to be on double average national income, as now, to have a decent standard of living.[/p][/quote]The cost of living crisis could be more usefully defined as a "too much lax lending crisis". The population grew between 2008 and 2010. House prices didn't. If we were short of houses, they should have done. Rents are only increasing because landlords are paying ever more for their properties. However, even with that upward pressure, they grew less than the rate of inflation last year. Honestly, i'm sure the banks would love to perpetuate the myth that it is population growth that is driving house prices. It isn't. It's the ability to borrow more. I laugh at all the people i see buying homes at the top end of the affordability bracket, boasting to each other about how much debt they've got in. It will end in tears. Affordability will return. It always does. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

12:09pm Mon 21 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Get a grip wrote:
Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub.

Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.
Why do we need to buy a house? Continental Europe manages quite happily in rented accommodation so why can't we? Until we see a house as a place to shelter us from the elements and not a way to make money, the disastrous housing policies we currently have will continue to cause misery for many low paid workers.
Quite. I am renting now, and i'm quite happy to continue renting. People tell me that i am wasting money, but i pay around £1000 a month for a very nice cottage in the country side, rather than £1500 a month for a mortgage on a 3 bed terrace.
The issue in this country is security of tenure. It is wrong that a tenant can get kicked out every six months and has to ask the landlord's permission to even wallpaper a wall.
Of course no government will do that because as the Tories have said, they don't like interfering in free markets.
I mean, it's not like they introduced a scheme to help banks sell mortgages to first time buyers in order to keep prices from stagnating, is it ?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub. Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.[/p][/quote]Why do we need to buy a house? Continental Europe manages quite happily in rented accommodation so why can't we? Until we see a house as a place to shelter us from the elements and not a way to make money, the disastrous housing policies we currently have will continue to cause misery for many low paid workers.[/p][/quote]Quite. I am renting now, and i'm quite happy to continue renting. People tell me that i am wasting money, but i pay around £1000 a month for a very nice cottage in the country side, rather than £1500 a month for a mortgage on a 3 bed terrace. The issue in this country is security of tenure. It is wrong that a tenant can get kicked out every six months and has to ask the landlord's permission to even wallpaper a wall. Of course no government will do that because as the Tories have said, they don't like interfering in free markets. I mean, it's not like they introduced a scheme to help banks sell mortgages to first time buyers in order to keep prices from stagnating, is it ? JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

7:50am Tue 22 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

cosmick wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
cosmick wrote:
What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date.
The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out.
But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,.
Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce.
Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing.
The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time.
2015 may be our last chance.
I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.
EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work.
The impact of E/U migrants in Weymouth and Portland at the momment may be not noticed much. But it will. You do not know the percentage of E/U migrants claiming against the percentage of the British population.
What i do know is that on the tv last night our good old E/Umigrants had come just to milk us, and very good at it they are. My point is that if we stopped these people taking the p ***, there would be more money in the pot to help people on low wages who work very hard and i do not object to them having help.
The ponces and the groups that use the system should be stopped right away.
Iwould think that most people in Weymouth and Portland have jobs that pay below the average wage in this country.
E/U migrants should not be able to get benefits for at least 5 years.
The 30,000000 pounds that get payed out to E/U migrants for child benefit per year when the kids have never been here should be stopped.
Any migrant that makes no profit for our country should be sent back
where they came from.
Any E/U migrant who wants to come to this country with a someone who needs care or money should be refused.
Shut the door stop the problem getting worse, then we can start to sort things out.
I do know the percentage of migrants who claim benefits compared to EU migrants. The figures are readily available. Try googling and you will find the answers very quickly. I think you will find that EU migrants are net contributors, more than be said for most people in the UK. I don't deny that there are issues, not least the social coats and the impact on wages. But you don't help your case by overstating other facts.
[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date. The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out. But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,. Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce. Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing. The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time. 2015 may be our last chance. I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.[/p][/quote]EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work.[/p][/quote]The impact of E/U migrants in Weymouth and Portland at the momment may be not noticed much. But it will. You do not know the percentage of E/U migrants claiming against the percentage of the British population. What i do know is that on the tv last night our good old E/Umigrants had come just to milk us, and very good at it they are. My point is that if we stopped these people taking the p ***, there would be more money in the pot to help people on low wages who work very hard and i do not object to them having help. The ponces and the groups that use the system should be stopped right away. Iwould think that most people in Weymouth and Portland have jobs that pay below the average wage in this country. E/U migrants should not be able to get benefits for at least 5 years. The 30,000000 pounds that get payed out to E/U migrants for child benefit per year when the kids have never been here should be stopped. Any migrant that makes no profit for our country should be sent back where they came from. Any E/U migrant who wants to come to this country with a someone who needs care or money should be refused. Shut the door stop the problem getting worse, then we can start to sort things out.[/p][/quote]I do know the percentage of migrants who claim benefits compared to EU migrants. The figures are readily available. Try googling and you will find the answers very quickly. I think you will find that EU migrants are net contributors, more than be said for most people in the UK. I don't deny that there are issues, not least the social coats and the impact on wages. But you don't help your case by overstating other facts. Rocksalt
  • Score: 1

8:58am Tue 22 Jul 14

cosmick says...

Rocksalt wrote:
cosmick wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
cosmick wrote:
What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date.
The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out.
But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,.
Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce.
Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing.
The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time.
2015 may be our last chance.
I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.
EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work.
The impact of E/U migrants in Weymouth and Portland at the momment may be not noticed much. But it will. You do not know the percentage of E/U migrants claiming against the percentage of the British population.
What i do know is that on the tv last night our good old E/Umigrants had come just to milk us, and very good at it they are. My point is that if we stopped these people taking the p ***, there would be more money in the pot to help people on low wages who work very hard and i do not object to them having help.
The ponces and the groups that use the system should be stopped right away.
Iwould think that most people in Weymouth and Portland have jobs that pay below the average wage in this country.
E/U migrants should not be able to get benefits for at least 5 years.
The 30,000000 pounds that get payed out to E/U migrants for child benefit per year when the kids have never been here should be stopped.
Any migrant that makes no profit for our country should be sent back
where they came from.
Any E/U migrant who wants to come to this country with a someone who needs care or money should be refused.
Shut the door stop the problem getting worse, then we can start to sort things out.
I do know the percentage of migrants who claim benefits compared to EU migrants. The figures are readily available. Try googling and you will find the answers very quickly. I think you will find that EU migrants are net contributors, more than be said for most people in the UK. I don't deny that there are issues, not least the social coats and the impact on wages. But you don't help your case by overstating other facts.
No way are the E/U migrants net contributors. Take the cost of housing benefits, child benefits, schooling , health care, cost of courts for the ones committing crimes.
Being self employed cleaning cars, selling the Big Issue, gets them a N/I number and opens the doors to costing us money no net gain at all. As for figures on GOOGLE i have seen the people claiming benefits drop, Is this because they are in work?
Anyone who is on low wages cannot pay there way in this country.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: What a shame this country has come to this, people who do need help and go to work put in with the scumbags. Some of the kids being brought up in the good homes may go on to be the people who support you/me at a later date. The scumbags and ponces we will have to sort out. But with the E/U open door to this country we have no chance. I watch most programs on the tv to do with people comming to this country,. Last night i know it was a repeat but people comming to this country to get benefits and have paid f*** all in. One mob got 11 kids plus grand kids all on the ponce. Whos to blame YOU ARE because you sit on your bums and do nothing. The will be WAR in this country soon, so its make your mind up time. 2015 may be our last chance. I WILL VOTE UKIP. WHO WILL YOU VOTE LIBLABCON? DONT EVEN THINK OF GREENS.[/p][/quote]EU migrants have had an impact, albeit it's very localised and,frankly, negligable in the Weymouth/Portland area. There are people who come from the EU intent on milking the benefits system, but the reality seems to be that it's a far smaller percentage than the proportion of the British population who are happy to milk the system. The bigger issue is the impact on wages and housing caused by the migrants who come to work.[/p][/quote]The impact of E/U migrants in Weymouth and Portland at the momment may be not noticed much. But it will. You do not know the percentage of E/U migrants claiming against the percentage of the British population. What i do know is that on the tv last night our good old E/Umigrants had come just to milk us, and very good at it they are. My point is that if we stopped these people taking the p ***, there would be more money in the pot to help people on low wages who work very hard and i do not object to them having help. The ponces and the groups that use the system should be stopped right away. Iwould think that most people in Weymouth and Portland have jobs that pay below the average wage in this country. E/U migrants should not be able to get benefits for at least 5 years. The 30,000000 pounds that get payed out to E/U migrants for child benefit per year when the kids have never been here should be stopped. Any migrant that makes no profit for our country should be sent back where they came from. Any E/U migrant who wants to come to this country with a someone who needs care or money should be refused. Shut the door stop the problem getting worse, then we can start to sort things out.[/p][/quote]I do know the percentage of migrants who claim benefits compared to EU migrants. The figures are readily available. Try googling and you will find the answers very quickly. I think you will find that EU migrants are net contributors, more than be said for most people in the UK. I don't deny that there are issues, not least the social coats and the impact on wages. But you don't help your case by overstating other facts.[/p][/quote]No way are the E/U migrants net contributors. Take the cost of housing benefits, child benefits, schooling , health care, cost of courts for the ones committing crimes. Being self employed cleaning cars, selling the Big Issue, gets them a N/I number and opens the doors to costing us money no net gain at all. As for figures on GOOGLE i have seen the people claiming benefits drop, Is this because they are in work? Anyone who is on low wages cannot pay there way in this country. cosmick
  • Score: 0

11:54am Tue 22 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013.

* Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals

* Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received.

I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested.
University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013. * Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals * Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received. I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested. Rocksalt
  • Score: 2

12:10pm Tue 22 Jul 14

jjlad2 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013. * Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals * Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received. I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested.
You are confusing Migrants with immagrants, migrants may pay taxes but thier is a **** sight more immagrants here that are costing us a fortune which far far outways the genuine migrants.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013. * Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals * Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received. I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested.[/p][/quote]You are confusing Migrants with immagrants, migrants may pay taxes but thier is a **** sight more immagrants here that are costing us a fortune which far far outways the genuine migrants. jjlad2
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Tue 22 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

jjlad2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013. * Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals * Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received. I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested.
You are confusing Migrants with immagrants, migrants may pay taxes but thier is a **** sight more immagrants here that are costing us a fortune which far far outways the genuine migrants.
I am not confusing anything. Cosmick claimed that EU migrants were not net contributors. I referred in turn to research about EEA migrants, essentially the EU with Norway and a couple of other small countries.
[quote][p][bold]jjlad2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013. * Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals * Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received. I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested.[/p][/quote]You are confusing Migrants with immagrants, migrants may pay taxes but thier is a **** sight more immagrants here that are costing us a fortune which far far outways the genuine migrants.[/p][/quote]I am not confusing anything. Cosmick claimed that EU migrants were not net contributors. I referred in turn to research about EEA migrants, essentially the EU with Norway and a couple of other small countries. Rocksalt
  • Score: -2

4:10pm Tue 22 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JamesYoung wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Get a grip wrote:
Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub.

Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.
Why do we need to buy a house? Continental Europe manages quite happily in rented accommodation so why can't we? Until we see a house as a place to shelter us from the elements and not a way to make money, the disastrous housing policies we currently have will continue to cause misery for many low paid workers.
Quite. I am renting now, and i'm quite happy to continue renting. People tell me that i am wasting money, but i pay around £1000 a month for a very nice cottage in the country side, rather than £1500 a month for a mortgage on a 3 bed terrace.
The issue in this country is security of tenure. It is wrong that a tenant can get kicked out every six months and has to ask the landlord's permission to even wallpaper a wall.
Of course no government will do that because as the Tories have said, they don't like interfering in free markets.
I mean, it's not like they introduced a scheme to help banks sell mortgages to first time buyers in order to keep prices from stagnating, is it ?
The French seems to be much less bothered about renting than we are. As you say the Tories sowed the seeds.
But I have to say that when I was looking for a place to rent a few years ago, an unfurnished place, there weren't even curtains up - like your going to be able to reuse curtains, or light fittings! Thats nonsense.
The biggest casualty in renting is wear and tear. I view that I rent, and therefore the rental is for use of the property and wear and tear is covered by the rent. My job is certainly cleaning. My job is certainly not decorating, fixing and repairing when things are worn. Many landlords would see this very differently.
I also got very tied of having my deposit withheld - the last notable occasion, the landlord keen to shake my hand whilst his dog barked continuously whilst we spoke, basically because we hadn't shined the light fittings and dusted the skirting board. As far as he was concerned his high level of cleanliness was his expectation. Thats fine - but the fact it was not mention in the rental agreement is extremely annoying. We spent at least a day cleaning which should be more than enough. When someone is balls out against you, its not worth the agro. The truth is that landlords want long term rentals, and not short term and they tend to get very pernickety when they realise the investment is not going to come with this particular rental.
Id never rent again...
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Those of us that work and save so we can buy a house and provide for the family get a bit fed up when we see the no great unwashed spending thier time in tattoo shops and the pub. Yes a sweeping statement I know but non the less true in many cases.[/p][/quote]Why do we need to buy a house? Continental Europe manages quite happily in rented accommodation so why can't we? Until we see a house as a place to shelter us from the elements and not a way to make money, the disastrous housing policies we currently have will continue to cause misery for many low paid workers.[/p][/quote]Quite. I am renting now, and i'm quite happy to continue renting. People tell me that i am wasting money, but i pay around £1000 a month for a very nice cottage in the country side, rather than £1500 a month for a mortgage on a 3 bed terrace. The issue in this country is security of tenure. It is wrong that a tenant can get kicked out every six months and has to ask the landlord's permission to even wallpaper a wall. Of course no government will do that because as the Tories have said, they don't like interfering in free markets. I mean, it's not like they introduced a scheme to help banks sell mortgages to first time buyers in order to keep prices from stagnating, is it ?[/p][/quote]The French seems to be much less bothered about renting than we are. As you say the Tories sowed the seeds. But I have to say that when I was looking for a place to rent a few years ago, an unfurnished place, there weren't even curtains up - like your going to be able to reuse curtains, or light fittings! Thats nonsense. The biggest casualty in renting is wear and tear. I view that I rent, and therefore the rental is for use of the property and wear and tear is covered by the rent. My job is certainly cleaning. My job is certainly not decorating, fixing and repairing when things are worn. Many landlords would see this very differently. I also got very tied of having my deposit withheld - the last notable occasion, the landlord keen to shake my hand whilst his dog barked continuously whilst we spoke, basically because we hadn't shined the light fittings and dusted the skirting board. As far as he was concerned his high level of cleanliness was his expectation. Thats fine - but the fact it was not mention in the rental agreement is extremely annoying. We spent at least a day cleaning which should be more than enough. When someone is balls out against you, its not worth the agro. The truth is that landlords want long term rentals, and not short term and they tend to get very pernickety when they realise the investment is not going to come with this particular rental. Id never rent again... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -1

12:28pm Thu 24 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013.

* Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals

* Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received.

I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested.
I'm pretty ambivalent about EU immigration, but i do think it's important to point out that for every pro- argument there is an anti- argument.
The problem with your figure is that it is only half of the picture. So let's step away from immigration and point out that its estimated that unless you have a household income in excess of £35k a year(1) (salaries, not benefits or tax credits) you are a drain on the tax system. Most people, in fact, will never make a net contribution towards society.
This, of course, means that probably more than 60% of households in west Dorset will be suckling on the taxpayer's teat for their entire lives.
It also means that, as immigrants generally earn less than this figure, each immigrant you add becomes a net drain on society, regardless of whether they pay more in tax than they receive in benefits.
Of course these are averages, but across a big enough population - immigrant and "native" - they hold true.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: University College of London research reported by BBC 5 November 2013. * Migrants who arrived post 1999 45% less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals * Migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits in the decade to 2011. Over the same time period UK people paid 11% less in tax than the benefits they received. I could go on and/or quote other studies, but I don't think you are genuinely interested.[/p][/quote]I'm pretty ambivalent about EU immigration, but i do think it's important to point out that for every pro- argument there is an anti- argument. The problem with your figure is that it is only half of the picture. So let's step away from immigration and point out that its estimated that unless you have a household income in excess of £35k a year(1) (salaries, not benefits or tax credits) you are a drain on the tax system. Most people, in fact, will never make a net contribution towards society. This, of course, means that probably more than 60% of households in west Dorset will be suckling on the taxpayer's teat for their entire lives. It also means that, as immigrants generally earn less than this figure, each immigrant you add becomes a net drain on society, regardless of whether they pay more in tax than they receive in benefits. Of course these are averages, but across a big enough population - immigrant and "native" - they hold true. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree