The true housing benefit scroungers

[Tokyo-Saint]

Sarb is a hard nosed capitalist bear. He would take you down faster than you can cut foam to size.

[Bearsy]

i don't think so tokyos, when me + my comrades are running up whitehall, knives dripping in blood, city fat cats like sarb will be dropping like empty crisp packets

[Tokyo-Saint]

Yeah but because you have to live out of town due to a lack of affordable social housing, he will have time to prepare and hire his own band of cut throats will all his money from the council.

[pap]

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?

 

Where we do agree is that the taxpayer shouldn't pick up the tab for working people.

 

Where we fail to agree is the cost of housing in the first place.

 

Your solution is for everyone who can't afford nice places to live in over-priced slum accommodation. My solution involves making the cost of all property slightly more liveable, with the financial sector making the sacrifice.

 

The difference between our two viewpoints? You believe in maintaining the financial system as is. I think we need to reform it to better suit the needs of the country. As I said before, a home is not a luxury, and in my opinion, a safe home isn't either.

Edited 26 February, 2014 by pap

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Where we do agree is that the taxpayer shouldn't pick up the tab for working people.

 

Where we fail to agree is the cost of housing in the first place.

 

Your solution is for everyone who can't afford nice places to live in over-priced slum accommodation. My solution involves making the cost of all property slightly more liveable, with the financial sector making the sacrifice.

 

The difference between our two viewpoints? You believe in maintaining the financial system as is. I think we need to reform it to better suit the needs of the country. As I said before, a home is not a luxury, and in my opinion, a safe home isn't either.

 

I agree, a home is not a luxury. However, I believe the location of said home, is.

 

I think slum accomodation is a rather extreme statement also? Look at the above property. Would cost 26% of your monthly income on minimum wage. It's certainly not slum accommodation. Let me show you around Chennai someday, then I'll show you slum accomodation.

[bridge too far]

If everyone struggling to find affordable accommodation in major cities moved to more affordable areas, how would those major cities be serviced?

[pap]

I agree, a home is not a luxury. However, I believe the location of said home, is.

 

I think slum accomodation is a rather extreme statement also? Look at the above property. Would cost 26% of your monthly income on minimum wage. It's certainly not slum accommodation. Let me show you around Chennai someday, then I'll show you slum accomodation.

 

Move to Bootle or Litherland. Then you'll perhaps understand regional relativism.

 

Better than that, how about bits of London?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If everyone struggling to find affordable accommodation in major cities moved to more affordable areas, how would those major cities be serviced?

 

 

Frankly this is only really an issue in and around London, affordable accommodation is available in most other British cities.

 

Commute? I know tons of people who commute from cheaper areas into London, an hour and a bit each way (same as me). Kent for instance is very cheap to live and easy to commute from. In addition to this the minimum wage is higher for London jobs, and this is based on where you work, and not where you live.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Move to Bootle or Litherland. Then you'll perhaps understand regional relativism.

 

Better than that, how about bits of London?

 

I understand regional relativism thanks, I just found the last comment quite extreme.

 

But you are still yet to comment on the property I found for your example. Why should someone on the minimum wage have the right to live somewhere nicer than that at the taxpayers expense when they can't afford it?

 

I couldn't afford to live in Chiswick anymore, so I had to move. Why shouldn't others?

Edited 26 February, 2014 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Sour Mash]

If everyone struggling to find affordable accommodation in major cities moved to more affordable areas, how would those major cities be serviced?

Wages/salaries would then have to rise to attract the appropriate workers back, rather than the market being falsely subsidised by tax payers.

[pap]

I understand regional relativism thanks, I just found the last comment quite extreme.

 

But you are still yet to comment on the property I found for your example. Why should someone on the minimum wage have the right to live somewhere nicer than that at the taxpayers expense when they can't afford it?

 

I couldn't afford to live in Chiswick anymore, so I had to move. Why shouldn't others?

 

The house you referenced is by where ms pap grew up. Many of houses in those streets are boarded up or occupied by students or asylum seekers. Many of the streets on that estate are "unadopted", meaning the council has no legal obligation to do anything with them.

 

The street you reference is ok, but the area around it isn't great, especially Garrick Street and Webster Avenue. Drove through there a year ago to see kids walking about without appropriate clothing, furniture strewn over the streets. Not a nice place to live, and I doubt that the property is actually 3 bedroom.

 

Not everyone has the option to move away from Chiswick, mate. If you had any kind of responsibility there (eg. carer, etc) or relied on any kind of support network, wouldn't have been such an easy decision.

 

Besides, I fundamentally disagree with you having to move away from your home area anyway. The phenomenon is not unusual; lots of kids end up moving away from their families for financial reasons. Many are growing up in houses that they'll never be able to afford themselves.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The house you referenced is by where ms pap grew up. Many of houses in those streets are boarded up or occupied by students or asylum seekers. Many of the streets on that estate are "unadopted", meaning the council has no legal obligation to do anything with them.

 

The street you reference is ok, but the area around it isn't great, especially Garrick Street and Webster Avenue. Drove through there a year ago to see kids walking about without appropriate clothing, furniture strewn over the streets. Not a nice place to live, and I doubt that the property is actually 3 bedroom.

 

Not everyone has the option to move away from Chiswick, mate. If you had any kind of responsibility there (eg. carer, etc) or relied on any kind of support network, wouldn't have been such an easy decision.

 

Besides, I fundamentally disagree with you having to move away from your home area anyway. The phenomenon is not unusual; lots of kids end up moving away from their families for financial reasons. Many are growing up in houses that they'll never be able to afford themselves.

 

You say I have no network, but that's not true. Our childcare is in Chiswick, as is ms Jeff's family. It now means ms Jeff has to get up an hour earlier every day to drop her off. But it's a choice we had to make. Spend £800k on a house there, or £400k on a house an hour away.

 

I don't know Liverpool, personally, so I can't comment. However, if you can get something like that in a (not so) desirable area, I assume you can get something not bad, in an alright area for around the £350-£400 mark.

 

I think the difference here is as follows:

 

I believe that barring any extenuating circumstances (disability, single parent families etc), people on the minimum wage have enough choice as to how to live their life that the money is enough to live on, irregardless of where the job is located.

[Barry Sanchez]

I understand regional relativism thanks, I just found the last comment quite extreme.

 

But you are still yet to comment on the property I found for your example. Why should someone on the minimum wage have the right to live somewhere nicer than that at the taxpayers expense when they can't afford it?

 

I couldn't afford to live in Chiswick anymore, so I had to move. Why shouldn't others?

 

A Tebbit example, move to where when there are no cheaper houses anywhere else?

[pap]

You say I have no network, but that's not true. Our childcare is in Chiswick, as is ms Jeff's family. It now means ms Jeff has to get up an hour earlier every day to drop her off. But it's a choice we had to make. Spend £800k on a house there, or £400k on a house an hour away.

 

I don't know Liverpool, personally, so I can't comment. However, if you can get something like that in a (not so) desirable area, I assume you can get something not bad, in an alright area for around the £350-£400 mark.

 

I think the difference here is as follows:

 

I believe that barring any extenuating circumstances (disability, single parent families etc), people on the minimum wage have enough choice as to how to live their life that the money is enough to live on, irregardless of where the job is located.

 

Your assumption is incorrect. Decent 3 bedroom places range from £600-£800, which is still a sh!tload cheaper than Southampton. My sister's place is half the size of mine and £300 pcm more expensive. She needs to live there because she needs a support network. Taking your logic to the extremes (and trust me, London councils already have) my sister would need to move to somewhere much cheaper than the south to survive.

 

Where are the £260 pcm places down south, Jeff?

 

I'm getting the feeling that you feel people should live in sh!tholes so you feel better in your 400k pile

[Barry Sanchez]

I believe that barring any extenuating circumstances (disability, single parent families etc), people on the minimum wage have enough choice as to how to live their life that the money is enough to live on, irregardless of where the job is located.

 

I totally disagree with you there, what about dignity and the standard for all working to have a basic quality of life, yours may differ to mine but I dont think the minimum wage offers that.

[pap]

The other thing Unbelievable Jeff forgets is that many of the "extenuating circumstances" are created by the market in the first place.

 

Anyone with a missus and kids can "earn" more money by not living in the same house.

[Barry Sanchez]

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/home-values/merseyside/garston/the-serpentine/

 

Not everywhere is a ****hole Jeff on Merseyside, London is expensive but does not stop it having more ****holes in it than any other National City by a Country mile, the towns that surround it are ghost towns and an awful lot of people I know are in effect mortgage poverty where by all thier money from working in an expensive ****hole goes on living there.

Fairness for all.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Your assumption is incorrect. Decent 3 bedroom places range from £600-£800, which is still a sh!tload cheaper than Southampton. My sister's place is half the size of mine and £300 pcm more expensive. She needs to live there because she needs a support network. Taking your logic to the extremes (and trust me, London councils already have) my sister would need to move to somewhere much cheaper than the south to survive.

 

Where are the £260 pcm places down south, Jeff?

 

I'm getting the feeling that you feel people should live in sh!tholes so you feel better in your 400k pile

 

Or maybe you're too picky on area Pap? Perhaps you are happy to stick up for the masses, but don't fancy living with them?

 

Some Liverpool examples for you:

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28800534.html

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28797057.html

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28108563.html

 

Anyway, as identified above, a family with 2 people on the minimum wage, they shouldn't need to spend £260, they should be able to spend upwards of £500, at least! Most places say 30% should be spent, so that should be £600pcm. And that is enough for a 2/3 bed house in most places down south.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I believe that barring any extenuating circumstances (disability, single parent families etc), people on the minimum wage have enough choice as to how to live their life that the money is enough to live on, irregardless of where the job is located.

 

I totally disagree with you there, what about dignity and the standard for all working to have a basic quality of life, yours may differ to mine but I dont think the minimum wage offers that.

 

So what do you expect for a basic quality of life Baz?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Not everywhere is a ****hole Jeff on Merseyside

 

I'm not saying it is Barry, my point is that it is fine to live in if you are lowly paid.

 

The towns that surround it are ghost towns and an awful lot of people I know are in effect mortgage poverty where by all thier money from working in an expensive ****hole goes on living there.

Fairness for all.

 

I don't quite get what you mean by 'ghost towns'?

 

Mortgage poverty comes around because people chose the wrong house in the wrong area and overstretch themselves. I can't defend stupidity unfortunately.

[bridge too far]

So what do you expect for a basic quality of life Baz?

 

Basic human rights as defined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 25.

 

 

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Basic human rights as defined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

[h=3]Article 25.[/h]

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  

 

Cheers, BTF. So Baz, which of these wouldn't be present in the previous houses?

[Barry Sanchez]

I'm not saying it is Barry, my point is that it is fine to live in if you are lowly paid.

 

 

 

I don't quite get what you mean by 'ghost towns'?

 

Mortgage poverty comes around because people chose the wrong house in the wrong area and overstretch themselves. I can't defend stupidity unfortunately.

 

Chatham, Harlow, Reading, Basingstoke etc etc commuter towns that have lost any soul that they did have through people working in London, the centres of these towns now have little trade as people all depopulate in the day and spend their money elsewhere.

Where can people on low wages live in London? Is it eventually only going to be a certain % of earners living there? If so what a horrible thought.

[Barry Sanchez]

Basic human rights as defined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 25.

 

 

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

And thats adhered to is it?

[pap]

Or maybe you're too picky on area Pap? Perhaps you are happy to stick up for the masses, but don't fancy living with them?

 

Some Liverpool examples for you:

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28800534.html

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28797057.html

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-28108563.html

 

Anyway, as identified above, a family with 2 people on the minimum wage, they shouldn't need to spend £260, they should be able to spend upwards of £500, at least! Most places say 30% should be spent, so that should be £600pcm. And that is enough for a 2/3 bed house in most places down south.

 

More stuff from Liverpool, Jeff?

 

Picky is damn right. I've lived in some utter sh!tholes and have no desire to repeat the experience. Litherland/Bootle was the worst, which takes option 3 off the table. I've just moved from near option 1, which is one of the most transient areas in the city with a huge heroin problem.

 

 

Don't suppose you've ever seen people queuing up for methadone on a Monday morning, or someone jacking up in the street. You could, if you moved there.

 

I think the real issue is that you've never seen real life, matey.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Chatham, Harlow, Reading, Basingstoke etc etc commuter towns that have lost any soul that they did have through people working in London, the centres of these towns now have little trade as people all depopulate in the day and spend their money elsewhere.

Where can people on low wages live in London? Is it eventually only going to be a certain % of earners living there? If so what a horrible thought.

 

What do you class as London though? Certainly East, South East, North West is more affordable, but living in London is desirable. If you are on the minimum wage why should you get to live in a desirable area?

 

You get what you give in life. Why aren't we all driving Lamborghini's? Because they are desirable, hence are more expensive, and aren't affordable on the minimum wage. That's the way the world works. A communist utopia doesn't exist, and will never exist.

[Barry Sanchez]

I'm sure I know that fellow on the left, not joking either.

[Bearsy]

i reckon you know a lot of people on the left barry

[pap]

I'm sure I know that fellow on the left, not joking either.

 

Shack. They release an album every few years, bugger off on the heroin for a few years and then re-emerge again.

 

Kensington lads.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

More stuff from Liverpool, Jeff?

 

Picky is damn right. I've lived in some utter sh!tholes and have no desire to repeat the experience. Litherland/Bootle was the worst, which takes option 3 off the table. I've just moved from near option 1, which is one of the most transient areas in the city with a huge heroin problem.

 

 

Don't suppose you've ever seen people queuing up for methadone on a Monday morning, or someone jacking up in the street. You could, if you moved there.

 

I think the real issue is that you've never seen real life, matey.

 

Yeah, I chose Liverpool because you live there. But I could also give you examples from Manchester, Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds, Ipswich, Norwich, Derby, Leicester, Coventry, Newcastle, Plymouth etc.

 

I grew up in Hounslow, you ever been there?

 

£600 per month not enough for decent enough housing then Pap?

 

"Picky is damn right. I've lived in some utter sh!tholes and have no desire to repeat the experience."

 

So who should live here then? Just crackheads, prostitutes and the unemployed? Or perhaps working people on the minimum wage would re-generate these areas if they had to live in them?

Edited 26 February, 2014 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Barry Sanchez]

What do you class as London though? Certainly East, South East, North West is more affordable, but living in London is desirable. If you are on the minimum wage why should you get to live in a desirable area?

 

You get what you give in life. Why aren't we all driving Lamborghini's? Because they are desirable, hence are more expensive, and aren't affordable on the minimum wage. That's the way the world works. A communist utopia doesn't exist, and will never exist.

What about the people brought up there? No one is exposing communist views are they? Give me any area in London where you can rent cheap? Inside the M25, thats more than fair.

[pap]

I grew up in Hounslow, you ever been there?

 

£600 per month not enough for decent enough housing then Pap?

 

Not if you've only got £400 left to pay for everything else.

[Barry Sanchez]

Shack. They release an album every few years, bugger off on the heroin for a few years and then re-emerge again.

 

Kensington lads.

 

Maybe not then, this fellow is a musician I am sure lives in Aigburth, talk to him now and again in the boozers I frequent, his wife is Kiwi I think or I know he lived out there, nice guy.

[Barry Sanchez]

i reckon you know a lot of people on the left barry

 

I know lots of people full stop Bearsy.

[pap]

Maybe not then, this fellow is a musician I am sure lives in Aigburth, talk to him now and again in the boozers I frequent, his wife is Kiwi I think or I know he lived out there, nice guy.

 

Could have moved. Shack might be off the smack.

 

When ms pap used to work in the Kenny home and bargain, they'd get updates of all the local wrong'uns. Some reasonably famous names would occassionally turn up.

[Sour Mash]

A Tebbit example, move to where when there are no cheaper houses anywhere else?

There will always be cheaper houses somewhere, house prices won't be the same everywhere.

[Sour Mash]

What about the people brought up there? No one is exposing communist views are they? Give me any area in London where you can rent cheap? Inside the M25, thats more than fair.

So people should be subsidised to live somewhere they can't afford because they were brought up there?

[Barry Sanchez]

There will always be cheaper houses somewhere, house prices won't be the same everywhere.

 

I'm listening find cheaper places than that, somewhere safe for your children, I dont mean the little Freddie getting in a scrape that would be in the front page of the Echo for 13 days, I mean somewhere safe.

[pap]

I have to say, I do find the old "move somewhere cheaper" or "somewhere you can afford" line a bit amusing given the massive rise in people going to food banks.

[Barry Sanchez]

So people should be subsidised to live somewhere they can't afford because they were brought up there?

 

Not subsidised no, properties should not be bought and sold for the profit they do, the places these people move into actually makes the place a less of one by virtue of having less character, they may have a tidier drive way but they nothing to these areas and villages.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What about the people brought up there? No one is exposing communist views are they? Give me any area in London where you can rent cheap? Inside the M25, thats more than fair.

 

If you are brought up there, but can't afford to live there, then you have to move out? If I was brought up in Chelsea, and then had a minimum wage job, then I would have to move, obviously? Why wouldn't you?

 

Wembley, Ilford, Leytonstone for a few...

[pap]

Family, stability, community - these are not things Jeff seeks.

 

All hail money, Jeff's god.

[Tokyo-Saint]

I have to say, I do find the old "move somewhere cheaper" or "somewhere you can afford" line a bit amusing given the massive rise in people going to food banks.

 

Move nearer the food banks Pap!

[Barry Sanchez]

If you are brought up there, but can't afford to live there, then you have to move out? If I was brought up in Chelsea, and then had a minimum wage job, then I would have to move, obviously? Why wouldn't you?

 

Wembley, Ilford, Leytonstone for a few...

 

Now work out the transport costs Jeff please to and from said places to Chelsea.

[bridge too far]

And thats adhered to is it?

 

My point exactly

[Sour Mash]

Not subsidised no, properties should not be bought and sold for the profit they do,

How much profit should they be bought and sold for then?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Not if you've only got £400 left to pay for everything else.

 

2 x 1000 = 2000

2000 - 600 = 1400

 

Just some maths for you there.

[Barry Sanchez]

How much profit should they be bought and sold for then?

 

They shouldn't but there should be a level of properties you should own, the councils should buy property and manage them, more housing needs to be built and never sold privately.

[pap]

2 x 1000 = 2000

2000 - 600 = 1400

 

Just some maths for you there.

 

Oh, so all you need to make it on your own is someone else to double your income?

 

Right....

[Sour Mash]

They shouldn't but there should be a level of properties you should own, the councils should buy property and manage them, more housing needs to be built and never sold privately.

They shouldn't what?