[Ammi]

The Government has been accused of “chilling callousness” over a tough new benefit cap that could lead some families to lose more than £100 a week.
From Monday. the annual limit on welfare payments to unemployed households will drop from £26,000 to £23,000 in London and £20,000 outside the capital.
The move was announced by George Osborne last year and has been described as a "monstrous" assault on struggling families that will shatter the life chances of the poorest children.
Around 20,000 families are currently capped by an annual limit of £26,000 (or £500 a week) on total household benefits, introduced in 2013. But the new lower caps are set to bring an explosion in the numbers affected to around 64,000 households.
Nearly two thirds of those affected are single mothers, according to the general union GMB.
For single people without children the cap will fall at £15,410 in Greater London and £13,400 across the rest of the UK.
According to the Department*for Work and Pensions, the 23,500 households who previously had their benefits capped have moved into work since 2013.
But analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that "the majority of those affected will not respond" to the tougher cap by moving into work or moving house.
"For that majority it is an open question how they will adjust to the loss of income," it said in a report.
The Liberal Democrats argue the new cap will “rob the poorest families of £6,000 a year” and claim Prime Minister Theresa May has abandoned her promise to help the poor, following her vow in her Conservative conference speech last month to “make society fairer for families”.
Leader Tim Farron said: "Theresa May said one thing on the steps of Downing Street and is now robbing some of the poorest families of £6,000 a year. She just misled the British public and is now clobbering those who can least afford it. It makes her party look like hypocrites.
"Attempts by the Conservatives to somehow re-brand themselves as the workers' party are now looking absurd. This is disgraceful."
GMB National Secretary Rehana Azam said: "Just four months ago, Theresa May stood on the steps of Downing Street promising to fight injustice and to ensure every person regardless of their background would be given the chance to be all they want to be. Today she is unleashing a monstrous new assault on 40,000 single mothers, which risks shattering the life chances of children up and down our country.
"This has echoes of the staggering hypocrisy and chilling callousness that saw the victimisation of single mothers in the bad old days of the early 1990s. Theresa May once said she would change the 'nasty party' but the mask has slipped again."
The move comes amid warnings that the poorest half of households face flat or falling incomes over the course of the Parliament.
Lower wage growth and higher inflation could reduce typical earnings by around £1,000 a year by 2020, the Resolution Foundation warned and has called on Philip Hammond to use the Autumn*Statement to reverse the "damaging cuts" to work welfare allowances.
"With the uncertainty of Brexit, there could be fewer well paid, secure jobs to go round - not to mention problems of access to nurseries with closures and cuts to public services,” Ms Azam said.
“All the while food prices are going up - and the evidence shows that single parents were already skipping meals to provide for their children, even before this latest attack."
Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green said: "Each statistic represents a person who has moved into employment and can now enjoy the security and dignity that works brings.
"By making sure that those people who are out of work are faced with the same choices as those who are in work, the benefit cap has been a real success.
"By lowering the cap today, we are ensuring the values of this Government continue to chime with those of ordinary working people and delivering on our commitment to make sure work pays more than welfare."


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...cid=spartandhp

[Kizzy]

Yup cull on target.... Evil warmongering bastards!

[Ammi]

.....I shouldn't laugh I know but it's not even 7am yet, you hit the ground running there Kizzy...(I'm not laughing at the content of your post as such or the topic...)....

[Kizzy]

Just finished work Ammi, like to check in before I hit the hay

[Ammi]

...awww you on a nightshift atm...keeping Arista on his toes in keeping up 24/7 with world events live as they happen....

[Northern Monkey]

This is why i've never and never will vote Tory.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"that could lead some families to lose more than £100 a week."

or could not

"The move was announced by George Osborne last year and has been described as a "monstrous" assault on struggling families that will shatter the life chances of the poorest children"

By who?

"But analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that "the majority of those affected will not respond" to the tougher cap by moving into work or moving house.
"For that majority it is an open question how they will adjust to the loss of income," it said in a report.
"

why wont they?

"Lower wage growth and higher inflation could reduce typical earnings by around £1,000 a year by 2020"

or could not

"With the uncertainty of Brexit, there could be fewer well paid, secure jobs to go round"

or they could be more

"and the evidence shows that single parents were already skipping meals to provide for their children"

which evidence?



Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green said: "Each statistic represents a person who has moved into employment and can now enjoy the security and dignity that works brings.

"By making sure that those people who are out of work are faced with the same choices as those who are in work, the benefit cap has been a real success.

"By lowering the cap today, we are ensuring the values of this Government continue to chime with those of ordinary working people and delivering on our commitment to make sure work pays more than welfare."

[joeysteele]

This is one of the many things as to policy why I turned my back on the Conservative party.

This is just one of a good number of badly thought out, heartless and truly rotten plans directed at the most vulnerable in society.
Reducing an already guaranteed cap should be a national scandal.

Shocking and shameful in my view.

[kirklancaster]

I am not commenting on this article or the underlying points in it, because I have not the time at present, but I will say, that there are certain TRUTHS that A LOT OF people seem to overlook;

There are thousands upon thousands of hardworking ordinary families with children who DO NOT EARN anywhere NEAR £23,000 pa.

the 'rising costs of living' mentioned within the article affects THEM just as it does those CUSHIONED by benefits.

Most of these families have NO disposable income and could NOT afford to live in London or a thousand other locations South of Watford, which seem to be the locations where much of these 'statistics' are centred on.

[Denver]

Dont worry it will all go to the immigrants

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I am not commenting on this article or the underlying points in it, because I have not the time at present, but I will say, that there are certain TRUTHS that A LOT OF people seem to overlook;

There are thousands upon thousands of hardworking ordinary families with children who DO NOT EARN anywhere NEAR £23,000 pa.

the 'rising costs of living' mentioned within the article affects THEM just as it does those CUSHIONED by benefits.

Most of these families have NO disposable income and could NOT afford to live in London or a thousand other locations South of Watford, which seem to be the locations where much of these 'statistics' are centred on.

I have to agree with you here Kirk. When I read the OP I thought wow those benefits, even with the cuts, are better than a lot of peoples wage. I'm not sure I see that they are being deprived or put on the breadline based off those figures.

We do however have a welfare state to be proud of and the tories do love to mess with it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

How people are unemployed in London is a mystery there and jobs all over the shop

idgi

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I am not commenting on this article or the underlying points in it, because I have not the time at present, but I will say, that there are certain TRUTHS that A LOT OF people seem to overlook;

There are thousands upon thousands of hardworking ordinary families with children who DO NOT EARN anywhere NEAR £23,000 pa.

the 'rising costs of living' mentioned within the article affects THEM just as it does those CUSHIONED by benefits.

Most of these families have NO disposable income and could NOT afford to live in London or a thousand other locations South of Watford, which seem to be the locations where much of these 'statistics' are centred on.

Originally Posted by jaxie

I have to agree with you here Kirk. When I read the OP I thought wow those benefits, even with the cuts, are better than a lot of peoples wage. I'm not sure I see that they are being deprived.

That's not even vaguely how it works, though. Benefits scale with earned income so, no, a family of four with an income of say £16,000 would still be getting working tax credit, child tax credit and child benefit bringing their total after-tax income to around £25500. Total for the same family with two unemployed adults would have been about £21000, now capped at £20000.

It scales in this way across the range of earned income so the idea that "hard working families" end up worse off than those not working is nonsense. The only way it could be even vaguely true is if the person working has absolutely massive travel costs.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Dont worry it will all go to the immigrants

Only 30%

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's not even vaguely how it works, though. Benefits scale with earned income so, no, a family of four with an income of say £16,000 would still be getting working tax credit, child tax credit and child benefit bringing their total after-tax income to around £25500. Total for the same family with two unemployed adults would have been about £21000, now capped at £20000.

It scales in this way across the range of earned income so the idea that "hard working families" end up worse off than those not working is nonsense. The only way it could be even vaguely true is if the person working has absolutely massive travel costs.

I don't know TS, tbh, I've never been on benefits in my life. It just sounded a lot on paper.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I don't know TS, tbh, I've never been on benefits in my life. It just sounded a lot on paper.

£20k for a family is not a lot of money, sadly.

It's £1660 a month. Take off (easily) £600 for rent and £120 for Council Tax/water, household bills realistically another £150, that's £790. "Little" school costs (they're always wanting something) another £50, then throw in a little debt (because whilst it's avoidable, let's face it, most people have some and you can't just wish it away) so another £50 and you're at £690 a month, which is about £160 a week to support 4 people - £40 each for food, clothing, toiletries, travel...

You could just about scrape together an existence I guess but throw in an unexpected repair or emergency plumber callout and you're screwed. You're one bad week away from going under. That's without even considering little things that are sort of essential these days like TV license, mobile phone (even if it's a cheap one on pay as you go) etc.


Put it this way... without wanting to give away too many of my own details, we have a family of four and our monthly household income is almost double that figure. Slightly less rent (Scotland), slightly more debt (lulz) and we run a car which all things considered probably costs about £200 a month. We don't struggle and, being honest, we probably "waste" a fair bit on frivolous / spur of the moment things but hardly living it up.I have absolutely NO IDEA how we would survive if our income was cut in half. I literally don't think the math works out .

The absolute lowest "all things considered" income we've been on as a family was just under £22000, and that was with only one child (aged under 2 so very little expense)... and at that point we were struggling, badly. "Ripped jeans and holes in the shoes, raiding the change jar to scrape together £5" level bad. "£80 bill lands on the mat and it's panic stations" sort of bad.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

£20k for a family is not a lot of money, sadly.

It's £1660 a month. Take off (easily) £600 for rent and £120 for Council Tax/water, household bills realistically another £150, that's £790. "Little" school costs (they're always wanting something) another £50, then throw in a little debt (because whilst it's avoidable, let's face it, most people have some and you can't just wish it away) so another £50 and you're at £690 a month, which is about £160 a week to support 4 people - £40 each for food, clothing, toiletries, travel...

You could just about scrape together an existence I guess but throw in an unexpected repair or emergency plumber callout and you're screwed. You're one bad week away from going under. That's without even considering little things that are sort of essential these days like TV license, mobile phone (even if it's a cheap one on pay as you go) etc.


Put it this way... without wanting to give away too many of my own details, we have a family of four and our monthly household income is almost double that figure. Slightly less rent (Scotland), slightly more debt (lulz) and we run a car which all things considered probably costs about £200 a month. We don't struggle and, being honest, we probably "waste" a fair bit on frivolous / spur of the moment things but hardly living it up.I have absolutely NO IDEA how we would survive if our income was cut in half. I literally don't think the math works out .

The absolute lowest "all things considered" income we've been on as a family was just under £22000, and that was with only one child (aged under 2 so very little expense)... and at that point we were struggling, badly. "Ripped jeans and holes in the shoes, raiding the change jar to scrape together £5" level bad. "£80 bill lands on the mat and it's panic stations" sort of bad.

I know my working single parent sister in law is struggling to survive on about 10k a year atm after losing her job about 2 years ago when the company closed down. She got no severence as they went bust and there was some sort of swindle involved. So knowing what she is living on, 20k sounded a lot, more than I would have expected. We've lived on that amount in the past when I was an at home mum, before I started my business, and we lived just on hubby's salary. Fortunately we aren't in that position now.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...awww you on a nightshift atm...keeping Arista on his toes in keeping up 24/7 with world events live as they happen....

Ammi I have Power Solid Nap (PSN)
set at 2 hours max.
alerts on Screens ready

24/7 is Good



Feel the Force

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I know my working single parent sister in law is struggling to survive on about 10k a year atm after losing her job about 2 years ago when the company closed down. She got no severence as they went bust and there was some sort of swindle involved. So knowing what she is living on, 20k sounded a lot, more than I would have expected.

Not meaning to be harsh but unless this figure doesn't include rent, or she is for some reason not claiming Tax Credits, then she is lying to you about her income.

A single mother of one "normal" (not disabled) child, working 16hrs per week at minimum wage, will be getting approx £12.5k in benefits and £5.5k take-home earnings totalling £18k.

If she works more hours than that, earns more than minimum wage, or has more than one child, then the total will be higher. If she is genuinely struggling by on £10k then she's not filled in a form in properly somewhere.

Unless she's simply not claiming anything out of some twisted/misplaced sense of "pride".

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not meaning to be harsh but unless this figure doesn't include rent, or she is for some reason not claiming Tax Credits, then she is lying to you about her income.

A single mother of one "normal" (not disabled) child, working 16hrs per week at minimum wage, will be getting approx £12.5k in benefits and £5.5k take-home earnings totalling £18k.

If she works more hours than that, earns more than minimum wage, or has more than one child, then the total will be higher. If she is genuinely struggling by on £10k then she's not filled in a form in properly somewhere.

Unless she's simply not claiming anything out of some twisted/misplaced sense of "pride".

I can only go by what I was told, maybe I'll talk to her and we can figure out if she is entitled to more. I know she's having a very hard time atm.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's not even vaguely how it works, though. Benefits scale with earned income so, no, a family of four with an income of say £16,000 would still be getting working tax credit, child tax credit and child benefit bringing their total after-tax income to around £25500. Total for the same family with two unemployed adults would have been about £21000, now capped at £20000.

It scales in this way across the range of earned income so the idea that "hard working families" end up worse off than those not working is nonsense. The only way it could be even vaguely true is if the person working has absolutely massive travel costs.

I'm afraid that without researching this (and I have not time at present) I have to defer to your superior knowledge here T.S. because I am not au fait with the specifics and minutiae of Benefit Allowances - other than direct personal knowledge of what SOME unmarried mothers and their live-in partners are receiving for their very large number of children, and that is not pertinent here.

I will say though, that as far as my statement on these cuts go, I did base it on the very information given in the OP and linked article:

"From Monday. the annual limit on welfare payments to unemployed households will drop from £26,000 to £23,000 in London and £20,000 outside the capital."

Thus, I assumed that £26,000 is THE current amount in London.

"The move was announced by George Osborne last year and has been described as a "monstrous" assault on struggling families that will shatter the life chances of the poorest children.

Around 20,000 families are currently capped by an annual limit of £26,000 (or £500 a week) on total household benefits, introduced in 2013. But the new lower caps are set to bring an explosion in the numbers affected to around 64,000 households.

Nearly two thirds of those affected are single mothers, according to the general union GMB."

Thus, I assumed that this means that over 43,000 SINGLE mothers are currently in receipt of total benefits of £26,000 pa.

Now if this is the case - as the article states it is - then I do not know of any single working mothers who enjoy incomes of £26,000 pa.

Take into account that from single working mothers incomes HAS to be deducted mortgage/rent payments, Council Tax, working expenses - food and travel etc - unlike non-working single mothers, and I am still of the opinion that the average working single mother is a lot worse off in real terms than her non-working counterpart.

I am here to be educated T.S. - and that is NOT me being sarcastic or facetious but totally genuine.

[Ammi]

..these cuts/caps are awful in the impact they'll have...even a much lower cut of £10 or so a week would have a huge impact on those who are unfortunate enough to have to claim benefits because their budgeting is so tight with no room for any amount to be less...I know for working people, it's a struggle with no salary increases but cost of living rising but this really is impacting on some of the most vulnerable in society...we have so many more ever increasing families in crises, those who desperately need help in their struggles and in lots of cases their crises developing and situations/issues from unemployment/loss of income and all of the emotional pressures and then their is no help their either in the help they need so pretty much in hopeless situations and being kicked everywhere and from every angle....and the thing as well is that it's taking every way whichever fro those most vulnerable because of not thinking things through themselves and making so many mistakes in the implementation of stuff that has been abandoned or changed or turned around so penalising for their own errors and failure to think through and implement properly because of their own cut backs...yes we need to do this and this and have this person and that person...and oh, well cut staff../oh no we might have to have a re-think....

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I'm afraid that without researching this (and I have not time at present) I have to defer to your superior knowledge here T.S. because I am not au fait with the specifics and minutiae of Benefit Allowances - other than direct personal knowledge of what SOME unmarried mothers and their live-in partners are receiving for their very large number of children, and that is not pertinent here.

I will say though, that as far as my statement on these cuts go, I did base it on the very information given in the OP and linked article:

"From Monday. the annual limit on welfare payments to unemployed households will drop from £26,000 to £23,000 in London and £20,000 outside the capital."

Thus, I assumed that £26,000 is THE current amount in London.

"The move was announced by George Osborne last year and has been described as a "monstrous" assault on struggling families that will shatter the life chances of the poorest children.

Around 20,000 families are currently capped by an annual limit of £26,000 (or £500 a week) on total household benefits, introduced in 2013. But the new lower caps are set to bring an explosion in the numbers affected to around 64,000 households.

Nearly two thirds of those affected are single mothers, according to the general union GMB."

Thus, I assumed that this means that over 43,000 SINGLE mothers are currently in receipt of total benefits of £26,000 pa.

Now if this is the case - as the article states it is - then I do not know of any single working mothers who enjoy incomes of £26,000 pa.

Take into account that from single working mothers incomes HAS to be deducted mortgage/rent payments, Council Tax, working expenses - food and travel etc - unlike non-working single mothers, and I am still of the opinion that the average working single mother is a lot worse off in real terms than her non-working counterpart.

I am here to be educated T.S. - and that is NOT me being sarcastic or facetious but totally genuine.

£26k is the current maximum, the vast majority would not be near that amount, especially as (I think already?) they cap Child Tax Credit to the first two children so even large families don't end up with the massive payments they used to if, say, they had like 8 or 9 kids. A single mother or couple in most areas of the UK with one or two children won't be at the "cap level" anyway. I don't necessarily disagree with there being a cap overall - but I think the current levels (£26k London, £23k rUK) is actually as realistic as the cap can be without causing major hardship in many cases. Lowering it further is needless. A large enough number affected for it to be a real issue - but (in economic terms) saving an amount of money that is completely negligible.

The cap also doesn't include earned income. This is an important factor. E.g. the "household income" cap for someone EARNING £10k would be £33k (£23k benefits + £10k earnings) but again that's a cap not a "guaranteed amount", it all scales in various ways, but basically for the mostpart it is ALREADY the case that it is impossible to be better off out of work than in work - again, with the exception being, having a job that requires running a car (whereas an unemployed person could take it off the road) or a job so far away that travel costs are prohibitive.

It's not an easy system to comprehend but personally I think that's why it makes such an EASY target for politicians - they know that most people don't know how it works. It's a double-edged sword. This will sound a touch judgemental maybe, but... in my opinion, for the mostpart, people who CAN comprehend it aren't often in the position to have to deal with it extensively... and the people who DO have to deal with the system over the long term, to be blunt, tend not to have the education level to be able to untangle it all (because the system is a disjointed shambles) and just accept that they get whatever the latest letter says they get.

In fact, the main reason I know it all so in-depth is because we used to run a parenting forum and there were families in all sorts of circumstances. Single mums, or families that had a good income but then Dad decided to leave and left Mum in a panic (a worryingly common occurrence), and there were countless threads with people asking for help because they simply couldn't understand all of it, so me being me (a kindly know-it-all ) I went through it all extensively. We were also still open when the very first caps were announced and there were a lot of people absolutely terrified of the consequences... although on THAT front, I do have to admit, the headlines are always sensationalist and it more often results in people being £10/£20 a week worse off rather than hundreds. The papers obviously focus on the most extreme examples, not the average family (as will be the case with the title of this thread; very few families will realistically lose "£100 a week").


If you have time / inclination, I'd recommend going here:

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

And simply "invent" a few scenarios to enter into the calculator. Single mum of one, unemployed. Family of four, one in work on low income. Go back and change it to medium income. Add an extra child. Factor in a disability. etc. and see how it affects the totals.


One thing to always remember though, when the totals seem high at the end, is that these figures usually include Housing Allowance / Council Tax Allowance. It seems like a larger figure until you take £6-to-10 thousand out straight off the bat.

On that note, it's true that the figures are skewed (extensively) by inflated rental prices in London and the South of England. Worth remembering in those cases though, is that saying "If you can't afford to live in London simply move away!" is a total non-argument. Social effects (moving people away from their support network, and therefore their ability to build a self sufficient life AT ALL) aside... what do people imagine happens to London if all of the low-wage workers migrate North? The city functions on the back of people who "can't afford to live there", and would grind to a halt without them. Major issue. There needs - NEEDS - to be a HUGE investment in good quality social housing around London that belongs permanently to the local councils and CANNOT be bought up by rich investors. I have no idea why this isn't a priority. It would cut the "London housing benefit bill" by literal billions.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

£26k is the current maximum, the vast majority would not be near that amount, especially as (I think already?) they cap Child Tax Credit to the first two children so even large families don't end up with the massive payments they used to if, say, they had like 8 or 9 kids. A single mother or couple in most areas of the UK with one or two children won't be at the "cap level" anyway. I don't necessarily disagree with there being a cap overall - but I think the current levels (£26k London, £23k rUK) is actually as realistic as the cap can be without causing major hardship in many cases. Lowering it further is needless. A large enough number affected for it to be a real issue - but (in economic terms) saving an amount of money that is completely negligible.

The cap also doesn't include earned income. This is an important factor. E.g. the "household income" cap for someone EARNING £10k would be £33k (£23k benefits + £10k earnings) but again that's a cap not a "guaranteed amount", it all scales in various ways, but basically for the mostpart it is ALREADY the case that it is impossible to be better off out of work than in work - again, with the exception being, having a job that requires running a car (whereas an unemployed person could take it off the road) or a job so far away that travel costs are prohibitive.

It's not an easy system to comprehend but personally I think that's why it makes such an EASY target for politicians - they know that most people don't know how it works. It's a double-edged sword. This will sound a touch judgemental maybe, but... in my opinion, for the mostpart, people who CAN comprehend it aren't often in the position to have to deal with it extensively... and the people who DO have to deal with the system over the long term, to be blunt, tend not to have the education level to be able to untangle it all (because the system is a disjointed shambles) and just accept that they get whatever the latest letter says they get.

In fact, the main reason I know it all so in-depth is because we used to run a parenting forum and there were families in all sorts of circumstances. Single mums, or families that had a good income but then Dad decided to leave and left Mum in a panic (a worryingly common occurrence), and there were countless threads with people asking for help because they simply couldn't understand all of it, so me being me (a kindly know-it-all ) I went through it all extensively. We were also still open when the very first caps were announced and there were a lot of people absolutely terrified of the consequences... although on THAT front, I do have to admit, the headlines are always sensationalist and it more often results in people being £10/£20 a week worse off rather than hundreds. The papers obviously focus on the most extreme examples, not the average family (as will be the case with the title of this thread; very few families will realistically lose "£100 a week").


If you have time / inclination, I'd recommend going here:

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

And simply "invent" a few scenarios to enter into the calculator. Single mum of one, unemployed. Family of four, one in work on low income. Go back and change it to medium income. Add an extra child. Factor in a disability. etc. and see how it affects the totals.


One thing to always remember though, when the totals seem high at the end, is that these figures usually include Housing Allowance / Council Tax Allowance. It seems like a larger figure until you take £6-to-10 thousand out straight off the bat.

On that note, it's true that the figures are skewed (extensively) by inflated rental prices in London and the South of England. Worth remembering in those cases though, is that saying "If you can't afford to live in London simply move away!" is a total non-argument. Social effects (moving people away from their support network, and therefore their ability to build a self sufficient life AT ALL) aside... what do people imagine happens to London if all of the low-wage workers migrate North? The city functions on the back of people who "can't afford to live there", and would grind to a halt without them. Major issue. There needs - NEEDS - to be a HUGE investment in good quality social housing around London that belongs permanently to the local councils and CANNOT be bought up by rich investors. I have no idea why this isn't a priority. It would cut the "London housing benefit bill" by literal billions.

Genuine thanks for this T.S. - it HAS informed and educated me, and I will use that link to learn more.

I could not agree more about a permanently State Owned MASSIVE portfolio of Social Housing properties, but I strongly suspect that the reason no Government has implemented such a scheme is that it will stop that 'money rinsing' scam which I wrote about on another thread - that where taxpayers hard-earned money is 'funneled' into the greedy grubby little hands of the really wealthy land-owning and powerful corporate landlords via over inflated rents for substandard cramped hovels.

Anyway, thanks T.S.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Genuine thanks for this T.S. - it HAS informed and educated me, and I will use that link to learn more.

I could not agree more about a permanently State Owned MASSIVE portfolio of Social Housing properties, but I strongly suspect that the reason no Government has implemented such a scheme is that it will stop that 'money rinsing' scam which I wrote about on another thread - that where taxpayers hard-earned money is 'funneled' into the greedy grubby little hands of the really wealthy land-owning and powerful corporate landlords via over inflated rents for substandard cramped hovels.

Anyway, thanks T.S.

I'm glad it helps, I spent far too long writing it .

The main landlord set-up around here that I have issue with, is actually the "one house" landlords. Basically people who were council tenants back during the sell-off, bought their council owned property for peanuts, and now rent that property out at a higher rate on short term contracts, to people who desperately want a permanent home outside of the private sector, and use the money to pay their own mortgage on a better house . Then once their mortgage is paid off, they sell the rental property for 5x what they bought it for (most likely to a bigger landlord / company, as families are priced out even here). And it's entirely down to "right place, right time". I mean being honest, I would have done exactly the same thing given the chance, of course... I don't blame original residents for exploiting it, I blame the flawed logic that allowed it to happen in the first place.