The true housing benefit scroungers

[Whitey Grandad]

Please. Deposit, buy-to-let mortgage application, insurance, gas service contract and letting agent. Rinse and repeat.

 

That sound like effort to you?

 

So what's stopping you doing it if it's that easy? You have to underwrite the applications and have some sort of deposit.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeah but on the other hand it helps with the pension crisis and the aging population. The real reason the government has invited all people in from the EU is that they are young, eager to work and will in most go home to retire. This helps at least cushion the problem of our aging population reaching retirement age, get us out the **** for a bit and when they get old, they go back to being someone else's problem.

 

Oh yeah?

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/26-per-cent-of-british-births-are-to-foreign-mothers-9106602.html

[buctootim]

No, you seem to have missed the point. The UK continues to suffer from significant net-migration, year after year, it doesn't matter what passports people hold or how long they tell a survey the intend to stay - it puts a strain on certain levels of housing in certain parts of the country, hardly a surprise.

 

Depends what story you're trying to tell. If all the foreigners went home and all the Brits came back we'd have an extra 1.2million people to deal with. Thats the point, and not the story UKIP / Telegraph / Mail would have you believe.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Oh yeah?

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/26-per-cent-of-british-births-are-to-foreign-mothers-9106602.html

 

Don't see the connection? Plenty of people with kids and firm roots in the UK **** of to somewhere sunny to retire.

[Sour Mash]

Depends what story you're trying to tell. If all the foreigners went home and all the Brits came back we'd have an extra 1.2million people to deal with. Thats the point, and not the story UKIP / Telegraph / Mail would have you believe.

[Sour Mash]

Yeah but on the other hand it helps with the pension crisis and the aging population. The real reason the government has invited all people in from the EU is that they are young, eager to work and will in most go home to retire. This helps at least cushion the problem of our aging population reaching retirement age, get us out the **** for a bit and when they get old, they go back to being someone else's problem.

The government didn't invite the people from the EU, they didn't have a choice, but yes, lots of cheap labour is a definite driver behind the scheme. And who knows what will happen at retirement age, that is a long way off and history suggests that won't happen.

[solentstars]

Depends what story you're trying to tell. If all the foreigners went home and all the Brits came back we'd have an extra 1.2million people to deal with. Thats the point, and not the story UKIP / Telegraph / Mail would have you believe.

 

Good post but unlikely to be believed by ukip fans .the truth is we spend 5 times more on housing benefit than social housing and would make more sense building more social housing to me and the fact we lost over a million council house on the right to buy in the 80s and were never replaced has lead to the shortages and waiting lists we have today.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[pap]

So what's stopping you doing it if it's that easy? You have to underwrite the applications and have some sort of deposit.

 

1) Self-respect

2) Already enough of a hypocrite, ta.

[Tokyo-Saint]

The government didn't invite the people from the EU, they didn't have a choice, but yes, lots of cheap labour is a definite driver behind the scheme. And who knows what will happen at retirement age, that is a long way off and history suggests that won't happen.

 

The Labour government at the time did actively try to bring workers in as the economy was booming and they believed there was a skills shortage in certain areas.

[Bearsy]

The Labour government at the time did actively try to bring workers in as the economy was booming and they believed there was a skills shortage in certain areas.

 

i.e. lapdancers

[Tokyo-Saint]

This is one area they identified bear, yes.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Don't see the connection? Plenty of people with kids and firm roots in the UK **** of to somewhere sunny to retire.

 

You say that they're going to go home (wherever that is) to retire but if they're all having their kids here then they're here to stay.

[Whitey Grandad]

1) Self-respect

2) Already enough of a hypocrite, ta.

 

Ok, I'll re-phrase it, why isn't everybody doing it?

[Tokyo-Saint]

What I mean Whitey is that the plan was they would go home to retire. I did not have any say in the plan myself. However, although they are more likely to stay if they have kids, having kids here does not necessarily mean they are going to retire here. Of the 1m Brits living in Spain, I bet a fair few of them have kids born in the UK.

[buctootim]

You say that they're going to go home (wherever that is) to retire but if they're all having their kids here then they're here to stay.

 

Not necessarily. Most people who emigrate end up going home. Relatively few people actually emigrate permanently.

[Batman]

Not necessarily. Most people who emigrate end up going home. Relatively few people actually emigrate permanently.

 

where have you found this?

[buctootim]

where have you found this?

 

The same place you found 'I disagree with this'

[Batman]

The same place you found 'I disagree with this'

 

I have not disagreed. just curious where your 'fact' came from

[Tokyo-Saint]

Here you go brett

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116025/horr68-report.pdf

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/before-you-go/10078469/The-expat-boom-turns-into-a-boomerang-as-33pc-end-up-coming-back.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056167/Revealed-Why-thousands-Britons-emigrated-Australia-returning-home.html

 

I know this is comparing Poms with Poles but people are people and generally end up near where they stared - Dubai Phil aside of course.

[buctootim]

I have not disagreed. just curious where your 'fact' came from

 

No more than personal experience tbh - but I dont see why that would be radically different to the general picture. I know probably 20 people who have gone abroad to work or have left intending to emigrate permanently. Only one has stayed.

 

Edit: Tokes was more diligent than me.

[Highfield Saint]

Meet Richard Benyon, the richest MP in the country and outspoken critic of the "something for nothing" culture, received over £625K in housing benefit on account of all the properties he lets out to housing benefit tenants.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richest-mp-britain-slams-welfare-3178089

 

The article features a nice map showing taxpayers the big housing benefit earners. The biggest scrounger in Southampton is Paul Broach of Mya Property Limited. They cleared £566K turnover in Southampton last year.

 

Broach is ex RBS and mya property is a subsidiary of Roxan Developments

[Sour Mash]

Here you go brett

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116025/horr68-report.pdf

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/before-you-go/10078469/The-expat-boom-turns-into-a-boomerang-as-33pc-end-up-coming-back.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056167/Revealed-Why-thousands-Britons-emigrated-Australia-returning-home.html

 

I know this is comparing Poms with Poles but people are people and generally end up near where they stared - Dubai Phil aside of course.

Those links have nothing to do with large parts of the UK being overtaken by net-migration.

[Tokyo-Saint]

No you are right, they don't. Who said they did?

[Sour Mash]

No you are right, they don't. Who said they did?

Guess no-one did, maybe they were just post on the wrong thread?

[Tokyo-Saint]

Nah Tim said that most people who emigrate return to their country. Brett said prove it you ******. I said that this is not exactly the same (poms with poles) but shows that most people do return home after a period abroad. Like me for example or Barry, while some stay over there, like Swedish David or Dubai Phil.

 

The point was to do with the borders being open to help save us from the pension crisis and the aging population. Not exactly on topic but not too far off topic for me as we were talking about Poles coming over here stealing our houses etc or at least you were and I joined you.

[Sour Mash]

but shows that most people do return home after a period abroad.

Does it?

[Tokyo-Saint]

Well it shows a fairly decent sample. It was just a google to be honest, I haven't done a PhD in the subject. Better than any counter evidence put up so far.

[Jonnyboy]

Ok, I'll re-phrase it, why isn't everybody doing it?

 

Huge amounts of people with money already are.

[pap]

Huge amounts of people with money already are.

 

Which of course, inflates the market and creates more of a supply problem. These bigger firms will always look to expand; "expansion" in this case involves moving a property off the market for an indefinite period, forever if it continues to make money.

 

The top-end of the market is set by those with the most cash to burn. London's prices have shot up because of the influx of foreign money; the poor have been washed out because market rates have risen to the point where it's ludicrous to keep paying that amount of money.

 

It's an example of a free market and massive disparities of income clashing to make most people worse off. Housing isn't a luxury; it's essential, so I'm not sure why its provision is profit-driven. It should be the fundamental base of a nation that enables it to achieve its true economic potential, not something you strive 25 years to achieve. How much spending power would people have with cheaper housing brought about by some form of government intervention? People have suggested loads here; land tax, rent controls - all big levers that could radically change the economic picture.

 

No government dares pull them. The solution is always the same; throw more money at it - never why are we spending so much on it? The financial system that so many governments are in thrall to is an utter fiction; money is arbitrary - backed by nothing. Mortgages are especially amusing. The money doesn't exist until you sign your agreement; it's created out of thin air, you spend 25 years paying it back with interest at which point, the bankers can say "hey, it was there all along!".

 

I'm starting to suspect that the financial system is just a labyrinthine implementation of serfdom

[Whitey Grandad]

The basic problem is too many people chasing too few housing units. So why is everybody so accepting of all this mass immigration?

[Sour Mash]

The basic problem is too many people chasing too few housing units. So why is everybody so accepting of all this mass immigration?

Because they're scared of being classed as 'racist'.

[pap]

The basic problem is too many people chasing too few housing units. So why is everybody so accepting of all this mass immigration?

 

Because they're scared of being classed as 'racist'.

 

Hang on a moment, chaps. Respect you both as posters, but where exactly are you getting the impression that people are so accepting of mass immigration?

[Jonnyboy]

The basic problem is too many people chasing too few housing units. So why is everybody so accepting of all this mass immigration?

 

why is everyone so accepting of these buy to let multimillionaires? they dont get spat on and told to go home.

[melmacian_saint]

Let's address it though, mate. You're wrong. EDF is proof that you're wrong.

 

I came across this. You give France a couple more years. If you want to talk about a fragmented, sinking ship it's that one you have to look into, not this island.

 

EDF will eventually be privatized or sold directly to the unholy financiers of the EU project. Just like they've done with DONG in Denmark recently.

Edited 25 February, 2014 by melmacian_saint

[Unbelievable Jeff]

why is everyone so accepting of these buy to let multimillionaires? they dont get spat on and told to go home.

 

Why try and stifle business for the sake of those that don't work. Counter-productive, especially in the current economy.

[Manuel]

Why try and stifle business for the sake of those that don't work. Counter-productive, especially in the current economy.

Not really a "business" though, just investment for him. I doubt he'll be employing many and certainly takes more out of the taxation system than puts into it. Not a contributor to society really, mere self interest.

[melmacian_saint]

The only way this is going to work is if the home countries of these oligarchs and ultraliberal bohemian billionaires start to employ the same policies as countries in Europe and the Western world did post WWII.

 

It's that time now for them. It's the stage in development they are reaching. You see it everywhere from India to Brazil.

 

Until then, they will overprice the West, much like they do in the richest areas of their megacities.

[bridge too far]

Why try and stifle business for the sake of those that don't work. Counter-productive, especially in the current economy.

 

Did you know that between 2009 and 2013, the number of WORKING POOR reliant on housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads ROSE by 104%?

[Manuel]

I guess a way a landlord could be perceived as being "good" for the community would be him to be an excellent and committed landlord and perhaps to offer rents at slightly lower than usual rates. If that were the case he could own as many properties as he wants for all I care.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Did you know that between 2009 and 2013, the number of WORKING POOR reliant on housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads ROSE by 104%?

 

Determine reliant.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I guess a way a landlord could be perceived as being "good" for the community would be him to be an excellent and committed landlord and perhaps to offer rents at slightly lower than usual rates. If that were the case he could own as many properties as he wants for all I care.

 

And this is what you are doing by offering councils properties for social housing.

[pap]

Determine reliant.

 

Out on the streets without government help.

[Jonnyboy]

Did you know that between 2009 and 2013, the number of WORKING POOR reliant on housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads ROSE by 104%?

 

Well we would not want the buy to let entrepreneurs who are saving our country to make a loss on their investment would we?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Did you know that between 2009 and 2013, the number of WORKING POOR reliant on housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads ROSE by 104%?

 

Unbelievable that this happens in a country where the government sets a minimum wage .

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Out on the streets without government help.

 

The minimum wage should be sufficient to survive in most parts of the country. If it isn't sufficient in the area you live, then you should relocate. I had to when I was younger. I couldn't afford a 3 bed house in the area I lived (Chiswick), so I moved. I didn't insist the government helped me to stay in the area.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Unbelievable that this happens in a country where the government sets a minimum wage .

 

An increase in minimum wage would lead to an increase in unemployment. A living wage is not sustainable.

[pap]

The minimum wage should be sufficient to survive in most parts of the country. If it isn't sufficient in the area you live, then you should relocate. I had to when I was younger. I couldn't afford a 3 bed house in the area I lived (Chiswick), so I moved. I didn't insist the government helped me to stay in the area.

 

Minimum wage will net you about a grand take-home each month. That's just about livable if you live in a £75 a week bedsit, leaving around £700 pcm to spend on everything else. Most self-contained dwellings are north of £500 pcm.

 

So yep, if you're single and have no problem living in a bedsit forever, then you can survive without government help. Beyond that, you're a bit f**ked and the government help kicks in.

[Lord Duckhunter]

An increase in minimum wage would lead to an increase in unemployment. A living wage is not sustainable.

 

This was the Tory line when opposing the minimum wage. Labours very clever and politicly acute response was to set the minimum wage (via a "low pay commission") so low that it didn't really make a blind bit of difference. All they did was top up the wage with taxpayers money. It was genius really, a win,win,win, for them. Labour politicians can tour TV outlets bragging about this great social policy, their client state was expanded and the big business got subsided labour. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor widened, the taxpayer got screwed, and people are trapped on welfare, whilst working. It's barmy, complete madness. Its not a minimum wage, its a welfare to work scheme .

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Minimum wage will net you about a grand take-home each month. That's just about livable if you live in a £75 a week bedsit, leaving around £700 pcm to spend on everything else. Most self-contained dwellings are north of £500 pcm.

 

So yep, if you're single and have no problem living in a bedsit forever, then you can survive without government help. Beyond that, you're a bit f**ked and the government help kicks in.

 

A house share would be a lot cheaper (let's use Liverpool as an example). £200 would get you a decent room in a houseshare.

 

Here is a 3 bed house, looks pretty good, for £260 pcm:

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-42834052.html

 

That leaves you the money to live a comfortable, if not frugal, lifestyle. As has been debated on here before as well, Liverpool is an great place to live.

 

I'm sorry, but if you don't work hard enough at school/don't have the skills to do a job competently, then why should you be allowed to stay in the nicer areas at the taxpayers expense?

[Bearsy]

I'm sorry, but if you don't work hard enough at school/don't have the skills to do a job competently, then why should you be allowed to stay in the nicer areas at the taxpayers expense?

 

when the revolution comes, ur on my list