Housing Benefit - I am with the Condemns on this one

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by finknottle, Oct 28, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Housing benefit cuts:

    For decades and under the stewardship of both major parties the snout in the trough landlords have been shafting councils (we the taxpayer) with grossly inflated housing benefit rents.

    As a taxpayer I am sick to the back denture of being shafted in every orifice by greedy bastards, so bring it on Dave.

  2. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Sometimes you make really good posts Finks and this is one of them times.

    The housing is up to £50,000 pa, add to that council tax, child allowance and the other benefits and some would be classed as having an income of around £80,000 pa.
    A lot of people work all the hours god made on overtime in the hope of getting anywhere £30,000 let alone 80.

    Chuck the bastards out and let them live in a normal house other than central London and tell the landlords to go stuff themselves.
  3. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Yep even with overtime, usually 20-30hrs a month (although that has now been stopped) I am lucky to reach 25K
  4. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    I agree with the above posts.I accept that there are people who have to work at low paid jobs in Central London,but why do they have to live in the ultra high rent areas there? London has a good public transport system and I'm sure there are areas within the greater London area with some what lower rents.
  5. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    And the reality of economics is that if the employers couldn't find anyone to work in the "low paid jobs" they would have to increase the wages to attract staff - so, using a little bit of perverse logic, subsidising housing is actually contributing to keeping rates of pay down.

    It's still a bit early for me to think deep thoughts but the logic works for me at the moment - I will review it in a few hourts!
  6. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Finks, a well intentioned post however.....

    I beleive that it is the local councils/market forces etc who determine how much rent is to be paid (by the councils) and not the Landlords themselves.

    The well publised cases (and there aint as many as you think) of London councils paying high rents to enable council tennants to live in Chelsea and Kensington etc are driven by the (predominately Labour) Councils themselves who do not think it fair for people who cannot afford to live in a certain area to be forced out (presupposing that theycould have afforded it in the first place before being placed there by the council).

    This aint about 'greedy' Landlords (and yes i am one albeit not that greedy). The issue is one of Labours socio economic engineering in paying benefit to tennants to live in mega expensive areas of London (because they cannot afford to) and all of us are paying for it.

    I am sure that there will be someone on RR living in London receiving housing benefit who will be affected by this. i wonder what they think?
  7. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    I would like to see how anyone receiving housing benefits of over £400 a week (working or not) can justify why they should receive an amount that totals more than many working taxpayers are earning.
    Boris Johnson (My Hero) has completely lost it on this one, obviously the public school educated twat has never had to live in the real world. :twisted:
  8. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    We can see why this particular thorn has not been grabbed before....the outrage omnibus pulls out and chugs merrily along

    These same objectors are the ones who scream, 'Racist', when they want to close down any discussion

    What is proposed makes sense, but will be difficult to implement, I'm sure
  9. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    I also find this one very hard to disagree with figures speak for themselves.
    This is just a suggestion, how would it look if you turned the argument on it's head and capped the amount of rent received by landlords for tenants under these circumstances.After all they are just not going to disappear and will have to be rehoused somewhere at the expense some hard strapped council, maybe a lot closer to home than some would like.
  10. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

  11. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Shit I've just seen a floor it my argument.
    If you were to cap the Landlord's rent it would deflate rented property values in the inner cities :cry: :cry: :cry:
  12. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    No it would not, the landlords could then ask the same high rents from those who do not enjoy government support in the way of housing benefits.
    These new renters would of course be more than willing to pay the inflated prices previously paid by the taxpayer :oops:
  13. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Fortunately I live in a 5 year old secluded estate and because there are fewer than 50 properties the developer did not have to include a social housing element a fact I am delighted about. Why the hell should any hard working family pay a large whack of cash for their property only to find that through their taxes they are also paying for some lazy bastards to live next door? If we are to pay for them these people should be housed in the cheapest property that can be found and not some highly desirable residence. :evil:

    Then we have the case of young girls getting pregnant so that they can be given a property at our expense. :twisted:

    Don't get me started on the subject of domestic cats. :evil:
  14. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Bang on Finks

    It is all about supply and demand. The Landlords can ask the going market rate because the 'private sector' tenants will pay it. The Councils stopped building their 'own houses' years ago (coupled with an increasing population things will only get worse despite Housing Associations and Shared ownership schemes) ). Unless the Councils offer similar market rates for rents then those in need won't get a look in. As it happens in Leeds, the Council offers the Landlord what they think the rent should be -take it or leave it.

    So, you either accept a lower rent from the council for tenants who 'might' make the Gallaghers out of Shameless look like the best behaved chav's in the country or you rent out to tenants that you can choose/select/verify and they pay the going market rate. Conversley the Council tenants might be ok but who would want to run the risk and the loss?

    For anyone wishing to adopt a perceived 'moral high ground' on this issue then you could help to ease the problem in your own area by renting out a room in your own house and benefit from tax breaks as well. please refer to the link below.

  15. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Not a very socialist attitude Finks :p
    I am of the opinion that the local authorities should purchase mobile homes which could then be sited on land that they own.
    Long term scrotes could be accommodated in these, bet they would still find room for the 50" television and video games. :oops:
  16. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Now who in their right mnd would rent out a room to many of the Chavs in tracky bottoms smoking weed? :lol:
  17. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Bang on there slim. What about an East European student (girl/boy according to your preference of course)?

  18. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    Sorry slim I think you may have misunderstood my not so clear post.The point I was trying to make was to cap rents would have a deflationary affect of the value of the propertys.Now what would follow from that re rents would be a business decision for the landlords to make in what would presumably be a falling inner city property for rent market hypothetically speaking of course :roll: :lol:
  19. Re: I am with the Condemns on this one

    There government are in no way insisting on a cap on rent. What they are insisting on is the maximum rent that the taxpayer will pay for rent to someone who qualifies for housing support.
    So the landlord can still set his rent at an inflated price and hope that the private tenant can afford to pay it.
    However I believe that the governments action will effectively bring rents down to an affordable level.
    Property prices will of course fall when many of the buy to rent landlords start offloading properties that they are effectively buying with tax payers cash by renting to those on housing support :p
  20. I do not believe there is a queue of private tenants gagging to pay £400+ per week,surely with that amount of cash to spend they would be getting mortgages and buying their own house.A tenant where his/her rent is paid by the state must be a better prospect than Mr.Nobody who is here today gone tomorrow usually owing 3 months rent.I'm sure when the Landlords think about it for a while a tenant who's rent is always paid although it's below market rate(whatever that is) is better than some chancer on the higher rate and the risk of having an empty property with no income at all.I bet no landlord has ever taken on a tenant from the council because he was being public spirited and felt sorry for the homeless.They may not be keen to admit as much in public but I doubt that many will be in a rush to boot out their council tenant even if the rent falls below their expectations.

Share This Page