Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Poor forced from the city's centre!

338 replies

redflag · 27/10/2010 11:45

Am i alone in seeing if housing benefit is cut, and the poor are forced out of the cities, buy to let homes will go up for sale then the double dip recession (actually the third dip by my counting) will kill our housing market even more.

People act like only those who are out of work get housing benefit, and also that the poor or out of work don't deserve to have nice things and like like other human beings, getting really sick of it actually!

OP posts:
SylviaPankhurst · 30/10/2010 16:04

What if I want to evade paying tax and pay less and less tax because I am greedy and want a bigger tv?

byrel · 30/10/2010 16:05

Lord Ashcroft and others aren't engaged in tax evasion, they are tax avoiders there is a massive difference. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and most people do some form of it.

legostuckinmyhoover · 30/10/2010 16:18

oh, thats alright then! Confused

SylviaPankhurst · 30/10/2010 16:54

Byrel is it ok then to avoid taxation but still have a good old go at people on benefits? Of course then the rich get richer and the poor suffer. Meanwhile we have a form of social cleansing going on.

MrsGhoulOfGhostbourne · 30/10/2010 17:34

Oh, how ridiculous! It is not social cleansing, it is correcting an anomaly whereby people who ant to live in an area they can't afford are subsidised by those who live in areas they can afford.

SylviaPankhurst · 30/10/2010 18:11

Of course it is.

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 18:19

But poxoxo - How can demand come down if there are still HB claimants needing to be housed? Confused. And like us, a lot of HB claimants can't rent in 'cheaper areas' as then they would be unable to get to their worklace due to lack of public transport.

And while we may be living in an area we 'can't afford' we are doing so because that is where the JOBS ARE. If we move to an area we can afford, there ARE NO JOBS. How much plainer can that be? Confused again.

MOST HB CLAIMANTS ARE WORKING FT! How many times can I reiterate that? It's not their fault they are paid shit wages. They either accept a job with shit wages or stay unemployed.

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 18:24

And how exactly would it benefit us (or other taxpayers) to move somewhere DP can't get to work?

He would then be unemployed, and after 12 months of that, they would then drop our HB allowance by another 10%. So again, we would either have to move to where the work is (thus paying higher rents/claiming more HB) or not even be able to afford to rent in the cheaper area where there's no work.

mamatomany · 30/10/2010 18:31

What does your DP do that can only be done in London and yet pays so little that he cannot afford his own bills ?
I am genuinely intrigued as to how such a situation could occur.

fsmail · 30/10/2010 18:34

The Company I work for employs drivers and warehouse people who earn about £16-£17,000 but that is pretty much the same around the country

MrsGhoulOfGhostbourne · 30/10/2010 18:41

The fact that a company pays shit wages is no reason for taxpayers to let those employers get away with them. If their employees need to earn more to live nearby or commute to work the employers will just have to stump up their fair share, rather than relying on the taxpayer to sub them.
Can't imagine why anyone is illogical enough to imagine that the status quo is fair or rational.

fsmail · 30/10/2010 18:46

Whilst I agree with you, there is a balance for many companies here. Do they give everybody a pay rise and make redundancies as a result of keep salaries low and more employees for when the market picks up because not all big companies are making huge profits at the moment. Those companies that are making huge profits should be leading the way, which would increase spending, tax and stimulate the economy. However, now they prefer to give bonuses because it is short-termism.

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 19:01

We DON'T live in London, we live in a small town in the SE. And it's not that DP's job can only be done in London (or our town), but the fact that HIS JOB IS HERE. You can't just move and hope that there is a job where you move to. And good luck MrsGhoul in getting the employers to stump up their fair share, if you can't get to work in a poorly paid job, there's thousands of unemloyed people biting at your heels.

If we move too far away from DP's job (which only takes being on the other side of our town due to shit bus services and no money to run a car) then he can't get to work. Fairly logical that we live where he can get to work on time? No? If he didn't get to work on time he would be sacked.

DP has LD's, and works in a supervisory position. He cannot take a management job, he has before and got sacked as due to his LD's he is unable to manage the paperwork that comes with a management role. Supervisory job in our town MAX wage £16K. (Which DP is lucky enough to get) Average management wage - £17K.

DP is AT his maximum earning potential. We move - he either ends up unemployed or on an even LOWER wage.

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 19:03

And just to add - MY maximum earning potential is just over £6K MAX as I cannot work more than PT due to my disability, and can no longer earn anything above £5.85/hr.

mamatomany · 30/10/2010 19:08

So basically and i don't mean this nastily i really don't but you want a lifestyle that most people who haven't got anything holding them back and work bloody hard for ? You think you deserve the same ? I'm not saying you are wrong but it isn't the way the world works is it ?

witcheseve · 30/10/2010 19:10

Most HB claimants are in work so I would expect that they are making some contribution to their rent and the HB is a top up. How will the cap work. i.e if a family are renting a house at £450 a week and someone is working but they are claiming £100 a week towards the rent, will the cap still apply to them or is it just the people claiming the full £450 and not working?

mamatomany · 30/10/2010 19:23

I think the cap is going to apply to the amount of HB paid not the rent paid so if you are working, you could I suppose be entitled to £399 towards your rent, but I can't see how that could happen whilst being legally employed at minimum wage.

witcheseve · 30/10/2010 19:25

So it should only affect people who aren't working at all in properties in excess of £400 a week. Seems reasonable to me tbh.

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 19:30

No - the cap is set at that rate for unemployed people, the rate for people employed on a low wage will be considerably LESS. So we will have to find even more of a top-up.

Yes I do think we deserve, if not the same, but at least a standard of living that is not below the poverty level...DP WORKS BLOODY HARD FOR HIS MONEY. And why is it our fault that we have these things holding us back? Can we make them disappear? Does it mean that we aren't entitled to at least keep a roof over our head, where DP can stay in work? Or should we just be stuck in a workhouse somewhere because we are unfortunate? Or even better, just shoot us...

mamatomany · 30/10/2010 19:31

Exactly ... from what I understand am prepared to be corrected though.
But if you are working and getting £400 a WEEK in housing benefit on top of your wages and tax credits then you must seriously have about 15 children and be paying £2000k a week rent.

witcheseve · 30/10/2010 19:36

Sounds complicated to me.

I am earning less than £16K because I usually have a day off in the week. I get some WTC and CTC and CB. I have never claimed HB as I have a lowish mortgage but did go into entitled.com to see if I could get some help with Council Tax which is a band E property and £120 per month with discount but I'm not entitled to anything.

Just a thought but who is actually paying the council tax on these pricey properties, it must be top rate.

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 19:36

No. The rent cap will be set at £400 a week for people getting FULL HB. No-one that works gets FULL HB. It is reduced on a sliding scale according to their income. Therefore what is a £400/wk cap for unemployed could be as little as £160 p/wk for someone on £16K when the cap comes in...because otherwise the HB bill would INCREASE not decrease!

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 19:37

Erm - the tenants are, we don't get ANY help with our council tax.

CardyMow · 30/10/2010 19:39

And that figure is for London, it will be capped at a significantly lower figure outside of London. Even if rents aren't that much lower. I'm quite sure a 3-bed mid-terrace in London doesn't cost any more than the £1000pcm we pay to rent ours?

mamatomany · 30/10/2010 19:40

"At the moment, the Local Housing Allowance is based on the median rent for an area, but from next year it will be based on the 30th percentile of local rents, which the government says will drive down housing costs. Claimants would lose an average of £9 a week."

This seems to be what Loudlass is taking issue with.
Again I'm sorry but no problem with it at all, the Landlords are the ones who will suffer full stop.
And many of the landlords are Labour ministers, I bet that's why Tony's autograph is being sold on ebay so Cherrie can make up the difference.