To ask what's the beef with benefits?

The problem with that kittykat7210 is that most of us here know it's rubbish.

Written I am disabled as are two of my children. With carers we wouldn't all fit in one cab we would need two.

kitty

I think that's the biggest load of bollocks I have read today

And I say that as someone who has just read the mail online

Well kittykat I expect the Daily Mail will be onto her soon...

i know this is controversial, BUT i have seen first hand the kind of lifestyle SOME people on benefits have, and its not fair. a woman i know 'struggled' with back pain, couldn't sit and do an office job, yet could drive from norwich to cardiff and back (around 270 miles each way, so 540 miles in total) in a day for a simple football game without complaint. each of her 3 children had a large flat screen tv in their rooms, one boy having 2 in his room so when his mates came round they could play the xbox on separate tvs in the same room. all tvs had complete sky packages, all members of the family had the latest iphone, all had laptops and designer clothes. and in the kitchen, the cupboards were stuffed FULL of branded food...

now to me, that isn't fair, to have a luxurious life, that my family (who all work 6 days a week all day, and have done since 18) could never afford.

i don't disagree with people getting benefits, i disagree with the amount SOME of them get.

Build homes, lots of them. Councils should do this

Yes!.

Changing the way competition works is tricky and doesn't always have the right effect. Becoming the competition is a better plan. You don't want the government to own all the houses, all the shops, banks or theatres, but they can guide and stabilise the market by being a significant part of it.

Councils could make it a long term investment. They could rent them at a profit to anyone. Tenants on benefits would still pay and to some extant the council would be paying themselves, but it wouldn't be going to LLs, who would eventually have to offer better prices or conditions to compete.

It seems to tick the boxes on all sides. Although as Arsenic says, it's definitely not simple.

I wasn't suggesting either option alone. this is interesting

I think housing is a much more complex market than that written. In fact, it's several markets.

Housing stock won't actually evaporate in response to changes of tenure. Demand for private rentals isn't high because it's the preferred tenure. It's high because social stock is scarce and ownership increasingly difficult.

not just relabelling existing housing.

Whether the government buy more existing property or build it.

if the government buys existing housing that won't help. we need more housing.

I don't think anything will work except more social housing. Whether the government buy more existing property or build it.

Nonsense. If BTL LLs do desert the sector in 1000s, it will just mean that 1000s of homes come up for sale at once. Which might allow more people to buy AND keep the cost of starter homes sensible.

so your theory is that the price will plummet despite there being a housing shortage? you'll remove a part of the market, but not a lot. Also, now you have just removed the incentive for anyone else to build any new houses.

price caps for scarce resources only makes the resource more scarce because you remove the incentive to bring more of the resource to the market.

written We live rurally, a cab to and from the nearest hospital is £60.00. We have two appointments this week, two next.

notaunique those that appear to be saving a probably in as much debt, if not more than you.

It's not that I don't give a damn about you and others, I'm just currently too tired to give a damn about arguing. Give me a couple of hours though...

Effect: scarcity.

Nonsense. If BTL LLs do desert the sector in 1000s, it will just mean that 1000s of homes come up for sale at once. Which might allow more people to buy AND keep the cost of starter homes sensible.

Written before I became disabled I had peace of mind knowing I could hop on the 86 bus! Can you really not see the difference between want and need?
Also I hope to keep leasing my car for five years. Many people do not want a new car every three years. The advance payments and adaptations can run into thousands.

of course I see the difference. And I also see that security is probably more necessary for someone disabled. What surprises me is that is at all cost effective given the price of a leased vehicle. it seems like old vehicle + cabs during repairs would be much more cost effective, but I could be wrong.

legislate to cap private rents.

Effect: scarcity. You want rents to come down? Build homes, lots of them. Councils should do this, and they should also move the ridiculously tight planning restrictions to spur private builders to build.

I think you could also fiddle with a stamp duty. If foreigners are pushing up prices, have a foreign stamp duty tax.

Derek

Benefits mum wastes hard-working taxpayers cash on 69p magazine

Critics have hit back, saying Derek should read cereal packets and oven instructions instead. A government spokesperson said this was "unacceptable" and that an inquiry into all magazine-buying by benefits claimants would be launched.

Derek was unrepentant, pointing out that the magazine could be used as toilet paper as well as making a rather nice fire. She is quoted as saying "It's nobody's business what I wipe my arse on".

The shop that sells Derek the magazine has apologised for not checking her entitlement to spend the 69p, stating that "she looked quite normal".

If you're working you bloody well should be able to turn the heating on and get the other basic things along with some luxuries to make life worthwhile.

In an ideal world yes...
However, as said it was my choice to do stupid things that led me to get into debt. (that's a stark contrast to being put into a position of needing to rely on benefits). and whilst it's slow going and will take a long time, I can at least see an end in sight.

Heating isn't that much of an issue (since I have jumpers)
of course I want luxuries -and I want them all the time (who wouldn't). but I don't need them.

It's hard to say my life is incomplete without the occasional beer when someone says that they can barely sleep due to an incompetent system that leaves them without care, or necessities. (or when others need handouts from food banks)

I realise that the daily mail isn't the best moral bar.
however, ignore everything in the story that's been spun in any way shape or form, and you are left with more than one person who has more than they need and can make savings.
Which is a contrast to your own story of not having what you need.

notauniquename you just saw (and not for the first time) people saying that wages should be higher. Government allows you to be so badly paid and then if you qualify throws you some money to keep you quiet. This is a big help to your company as they need not pay you much.

If you're working you bloody well should be able to turn the heating on and get the other basic things along with some luxuries to make life worthwhile.

But they keep you on the edge and if people complain they are told that it would all be fine if not for people on benefits and then they say "hey look! they get as much as you do and their not working. How can that be right?" And it isn't right, but the joke is that YOU should be getting more.

As for the Daily Mail. When you see them print a story about a benefit scrounger (or someone who appears to be) every day for a week. Ask yourself why only a week?

Could it be that they could only find 7 in the whole bloody country?

This was typed from a laptop that's tied to my job (as I can't afford to buy my own computer)
from a cold (because I can't afford to run the heating) house

that's shared with 3 adults (because we can't afford to live alone)
(well was once a house, now divided into multiple houses) -we can't afford anywhere bigger,
As I look down it occurs to me that all of the clothes that I wear have been gifted to me, (either Christmas of birthdays over many years) because I can't afford to buy clothes.
soon, I'll drive to work in a car that's a couple of decades old (because I can't afford a new one)
that I've had to learn to service and fix myself (as I can't afford to use garages -and could certainly never afford to go to a main dealer where parts may be just on the shelf),
I'll work all day and when I return home we'll eat left over stew that has been hiding in the back of the freezer...
(and yet I don't qualify for benefits -my problem is the amount of debts I built up when I was younger, this will continue for at least 5 - 10 years (if not more) as I can only make the minimum payments -which barely pays for the interest added each month)

My job also expects me to work all day, and then when I get home I'm frequently "on call" and get woken up through the night as well. I fully understand what it's like to barely focus, to be so tired that your head hurts and you can barely keep your eyes open, and to then be told that you should be grateful for what you have.

So I do know some of what you are going through. I know what it's like to be told to "suck it up" (though that's not what I'm doing.) I do empathise and sympathise with you.
I know exactly what it is like to struggle to meet the basic needs of living and to have gone for years without the things that I want

Being on benefits is not a walk in the park, but then neither is working!

Without wanting to start some sort of infighting war, but you say that your basic needs (such as some respite car to enable to to sleep) are not met, don't you take it to mean that the system is broken if you can't get sleep. yet others get by quite happily in benefits, and manage to save vast amounts to just service their wants
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246104/Unemployed-single-mother-benefits-spends-2-000-Christmas-20-presents-children.html
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6134355/Meet-benefits-couple-who-plan-to-spend-15k-on-Xmas-splurge-paid-for-by-YOU.html

(No, I don't think that's the status quo for benefits, and I don't think that those papers are quality journalism.)
but I do standby the statement that society has become somewhat warped on what are basic needs (food and clothes), and wants going away for a holiday, or wanting wine or beer to drink in the evenings, lots of Christmas presents.

I'm aware that many people receive benefits as well as working, (free nursery hours, working tax credits, housing allowances etc.)
As I said earlier I'm also aware that those on benefits also pay tax, and that tax helps to fund "the welfare state system".

I'm not trying to come across as superior to anyone, having a job does not make anyone superior, paying tax does not make anyone superior, earning so little that you're below the threshold for paying tax doesn't make you superior or inferior either.

As I said earlier I'd rather have nothing left to give than have lots more and live in a society that did not have a welfare system to look after the poorest

If you don't give a damn about anyone else why do you immediately expect them to give a damn about you?

ice

Completely agree, and just imagine what the statistics would be like if all those "lazy" carers and "sponging of their husband" SAHM had to find jobs as well

Also there are vastly more people unemployed than their are job vacancies at any one time. So if people got employment it would be at the expense of someone else?

How can a rational person hold the idea that people who are unemployed actually WANT to be unemployed at the same time as these facts?