The Bedroom Tax - The big lie

[Rascal]

Can't be arsed reading the whole thread, but anything that gets the poor out of their mansions and back into bedsits gets my vote. Down here BBCLondon news did a piece on a single mum with 4 kids that would be forced to move out of her flat in Kensington - Laugh? I nearly shit myself. Of course you'll have to move sweetheart, because just like the rest of us that earn less than £500k a year - you can't fucking afford to live there.

So you support cleansing on terms of wealth?


A true proponent of Ghettoisation.

What will the posh people in Surrey think when Shanty towns grow up next to their big houses.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Can't be arsed reading the whole thread, but anything that gets the poor out of their mansions and back into bedsits gets my vote. Down here BBCLondon news did a piece on a single mum with 4 kids that would be forced to move out of her flat in Kensington - Laugh? I nearly shit myself. Of course you'll have to move sweetheart, because just like the rest of us that earn less than £500k a year - you can't fucking afford to live there.

So you support cleansing on terms of wealth?


A true proponent of Ghettoisation.

What will the posh people in Surrey think when Shanty towns grow up next to their big houses.

I'm not a proponent of anything. I'm just saying that we are all constrained in our choices by our incomes - why should benefits claimants be any different? Down here the cost of living is lunacy and frankly a con, but I actually think subsidising rentals with housing benefit in London enslaves the poor. If you cap housing benefit and the low income/benefits claimants have to move out who works in the shit minimum wage jobs - no one. That would actually force a proper rethink, because even in Kensington they need their cleaners, till operators ect. What would they have to pay to make people commute to fill these jobs or afford to live around there? - it might just empower them with a decent wage. Re-distribution of wealth Rascal, which I think you would like.

 

[Rascal]

Can't be arsed reading the whole thread, but anything that gets the poor out of their mansions and back into bedsits gets my vote. Down here BBCLondon news did a piece on a single mum with 4 kids that would be forced to move out of her flat in Kensington - Laugh? I nearly shit myself. Of course you'll have to move sweetheart, because just like the rest of us that earn less than £500k a year - you can't fucking afford to live there.

So you support cleansing on terms of wealth?


A true proponent of Ghettoisation.

What will the posh people in Surrey think when Shanty towns grow up next to their big houses.

I'm not a proponent of anything. I'm just saying that we are all constrained in our choices by our incomes - why should benefits claimants be any different? Down here the cost of living is lunacy and frankly a con, but I actually think subsidising rentals with housing benefit in London enslaves the poor. If you cap housing benefit and the low income/benefits claimants have to move out who works in the shit minimum wage jobs - no one. That would actually force a proper rethink, because even in Kensington they need their cleaners, till operators ect. What would they have to pay to make people commute to fill these jobs or afford to live around there? - it might just empower them with a decent wage. Re-distribution of wealth Rascal, which I think you would like.

Simple answer. Reintrodue the rent caps Thatcher removed. Our tax subsidies private landlords most.

 

[roaminblue]

Can't be arsed reading the whole thread, but anything that gets the poor out of their mansions and back into bedsits gets my vote. Down here BBCLondon news did a piece on a single mum with 4 kids that would be forced to move out of her flat in Kensington - Laugh? I nearly shit myself. Of course you'll have to move sweetheart, because just like the rest of us that earn less than £500k a year - you can't fucking afford to live there.

So you support cleansing on terms of wealth?


A true proponent of Ghettoisation.

What will the posh people in Surrey think when Shanty towns grow up next to their big houses.

It's already happened. I'm very sad to inform you that not 200 yds from my house a couple, who look as though they probably don't have jobs, have moved into the house of a, now deceased, ms havisham type.

Typically, they let their children play on the park, where the unwritten rule is residents only. As they are likely to be moved soon, they can only be classed as guests.

I even saw their dog do a poo.

Still, at least the neighbourhood watch will have something to do.

 

[Helmet Cole]

So you support cleansing on terms of wealth?


A true proponent of Ghettoisation.

What will the posh people in Surrey think when Shanty towns grow up next to their big houses.

I'm not a proponent of anything. I'm just saying that we are all constrained in our choices by our incomes - why should benefits claimants be any different? Down here the cost of living is lunacy and frankly a con, but I actually think subsidising rentals with housing benefit in London enslaves the poor. If you cap housing benefit and the low income/benefits claimants have to move out who works in the shit minimum wage jobs - no one. That would actually force a proper rethink, because even in Kensington they need their cleaners, till operators ect. What would they have to pay to make people commute to fill these jobs or afford to live around there? - it might just empower them with a decent wage. Re-distribution of wealth Rascal, which I think you would like.

Simple answer. Reintrodue the rent caps Thatcher removed. Our tax subsidies private landlords most.

with respect Rasc, that's actually a much more complicated answer. It would be cheaper and remove a beurocracy to cap HB, rather than set, police and enforce a rent cap.

 

[roaminblue]

I'm not a proponent of anything. I'm just saying that we are all constrained in our choices by our incomes - why should benefits claimants be any different? Down here the cost of living is lunacy and frankly a con, but I actually think subsidising rentals with housing benefit in London enslaves the poor. If you cap housing benefit and the low income/benefits claimants have to move out who works in the shit minimum wage jobs - no one. That would actually force a proper rethink, because even in Kensington they need their cleaners, till operators ect. What would they have to pay to make people commute to fill these jobs or afford to live around there? - it might just empower them with a decent wage. Re-distribution of wealth Rascal, which I think you would like.

Simple answer. Reintrodue the rent caps Thatcher removed. Our tax subsidies private landlords most.

with respect Rasc, that's actually a much more complicated answer. It would be cheaper and remove a beurocracy to cap HB, rather than set, police and enforce a rent cap.

I agree about caps. As I mentioned in this post ages ago, it can create a black market (see new York) and could actually contribute further to a bubble. Though analysts today disagreed there is s property bubble (though I disagree with their justification for saying so)

 

[hilts]

More social housing is the obvious answer but if i am being honest i wouldn't want it on my doorstep and neither would a lot of people.

 

[Mike N]

More social housing is the obvious answer but if i am being honest i wouldn't want it on my doorstep and neither would a lot of people.

Its clear the country needs more Social Housing but it doesn't have to be like the old 'council estates'. New Social Housing could be built as part of new developments and doesn't need to look any different. What is required is tenancy management. I know from experience that most Social Housing residents are decent people and never cause any problems to their neighbours.

Anything is possible if the desire to improve things is there. At the moment this awful Government couldn't give a toss about Social Housing and those who need it.

 

[hilts]

More social housing is the obvious answer but if i am being honest i wouldn't want it on my doorstep and neither would a lot of people.

Its clear the country needs more Social Housing but it doesn't have to be like the old 'council estates'. New Social Housing could be built as part of new developments and doesn't need to look any different. What is required is tenancy management. I know from experience that most Social Housing residents are decent people and never cause any problems to their neighbours.

Anything is possible if the desire to improve things is there. At the moment this awful Government couldn't give a toss about Social Housing and those who need it.

You are absolutely right most residents are fine but as per usual it is the minority that ruin it but there is no answer to that, these people have to be housed somewhere, this is why people are prepared to pay 200 grand for a 2 up 2 down property in Didsbury which would cost 40 grand in Clayton.

 

[Rascal]

More social housing is the obvious answer but if i am being honest i wouldn't want it on my doorstep and neither would a lot of people.

I have lived in social housing on a council estate all my life and the people are better than snobbish nimbys like you