Notices

General Chat General discussion. Want to chat about anything not covered in another forum - This is the place!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 27-07-2013, 02:19 PM #1
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
Default Do families really get 36000 welfare?

a chap I know who never seems to have worked in his life, has 6 kids
he said he and his partner gets £3000 a month tax free
plus free house paid for ....various other freebees like glasses, prescriptions etc
neither him or his partner have worked in the 10 years ive known them

is this about the average?

that's £750 a week .....but with 6 kids I guess theres a lot of expenses

is this the correct information ive been given? is it morally right in your opinion?

do you agree with the £25,000 cap or should it remain as it is or be lower?
the truth is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 02:35 PM #2
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

The cap is ridiculously high.

It should be just below national minimum wage for a 40 hour week, which works out at about half the proposed cap.

Last edited by CaudleHalbard; 27-07-2013 at 02:41 PM.
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 02:57 PM #3
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
Default

im amazed the nasty party haven't come down on this with a sledgehammer.....yet they have come down on the disabled with a sledgehammer as theyre having every single benefit reassessed and over a million have lost their disability benefits (many have overturned decisions but that's got to be major stress....how do they even survive in the meantime) why have the tories gone after the disabled yet been relatively hands off with the rest of the masses on welfare? is this purely about votes? I don't really understand the moral arguments for £ 36000 or £25000 do they have moral arguments anymore?

Last edited by the truth; 27-07-2013 at 02:58 PM.
the truth is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 27-07-2013, 03:02 PM #4
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

I know a chap who's been on incapacity benefit for about 12 years even though his temporary problem ended after about 2 years.

Oh and he works full time as well!

All for benefits being reviewed regularly . So should council house entitlement, although that is being brought in for new tenants only.
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 01:30 PM #5
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
Default

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...in-facts-myths

There's a lot of mythmaking around benefits in this country.

Everyone knows, anecdotally, someone who is gaming the system. But the reality is that fraud is statistically very low within our system.

The vast majority of people claiming benefits do so because they are in need. The vast majority of those who do so are living in poverty. More disturbingly, the majority of those are claiming in-work benefits.

The notion that many people are living it up on the public purse is false. I find it disturbing that as a nation we show more anger towards those who claim benefits than we do towards those who have actually broken the country. I also find it sad that in order to make being in work a better option than being on benefits, our answer is to strip away that help instead of push up wages. The only reason some are better off on benefits than in work is because working wages have stagnated resulting in a real term drop. The lower wages go in relation to the cost of living, the more likely it is that staying on benefits will be better than being in work. The answer to this is to make work pay more not to make benefits pay less.

Last edited by DanaC; 28-07-2013 at 01:33 PM.
DanaC is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 02:07 PM #6
AnnieK's Avatar
AnnieK AnnieK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchester
Posts: 15,060


AnnieK AnnieK is offline
Senior Member
AnnieK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchester
Posts: 15,060


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...in-facts-myths

There's a lot of mythmaking around benefits in this country.

Everyone knows, anecdotally, someone who is gaming the system. But the reality is that fraud is statistically very low within our system.

The vast majority of people claiming benefits do so because they are in need. The vast majority of those who do so are living in poverty. More disturbingly, the majority of those are claiming in-work benefits.

The notion that many people are living it up on the public purse is false. I find it disturbing that as a nation we show more anger towards those who claim benefits than we do towards those who have actually broken the country. I also find it sad that in order to make being in work a better option than being on benefits, our answer is to strip away that help instead of push up wages. The only reason some are better off on benefits than in work is because working wages have stagnated resulting in a real term drop. The lower wages go in relation to the cost of living, the more likely it is that staying on benefits will be better than being in work. The answer to this is to make work pay more not to make benefits pay less.
Great post!!
__________________
AnnieK is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 02:14 PM #7
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anniek76 View Post
Great post!!
It would be a great post but is slightly undermined by the fact we have about one million Eastern Europeans working in the UK and 2.5 million able bodied people on benefits.

The cap on benefits is not the major problem. The easy availability is the issue. We are a soft touch.

The worst aspect is that we do not spend enough on those genuinely in need because benefits are handed to all and sundry. That is so infuriating! There needs to be a reallocation.
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 03:24 PM #8
Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 64,791


Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 64,791


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the truth View Post
a chap I know who never seems to have worked in his life, has 6 kids
he said he and his partner gets £3000 a month tax free
plus free house paid for ....various other freebees like glasses, prescriptions etc
neither him or his partner have worked in the 10 years ive known them

is this about the average?

that's £750 a week .....but with 6 kids I guess theres a lot of expenses

is this the correct information ive been given? is it morally right in your opinion?

do you agree with the £25,000 cap or should it remain as it is or be lower?
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

Check for yourself.

To me at first glance, that looks to be about 200 quid per week over what they should get. Unless they are disabled or the kids are disabled.


As for the cap I am honestly torn. As generally, the majority of peoples benefits is housing benefit (especially if they live near london) so I think a better way to do it would be to introduce rent caps. Would stop buy to let landlords ripping people off so much. And would also benefit those working too.

Last edited by Vicky.; 28-07-2013 at 03:26 PM.
Vicky. is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 04:06 PM #9
Verbal's Avatar
Verbal Verbal is offline
Something inoffensive
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,655

Favourites (more):
BB15: Chris
CBB 13: Lionel Blair
Verbal Verbal is offline
Something inoffensive
Verbal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,655

Favourites (more):
BB15: Chris
CBB 13: Lionel Blair
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard View Post
It would be a great post but is slightly undermined by the fact we have about one million Eastern Europeans working in the UK and 2.5 million able bodied people on benefits.

The cap on benefits is not the major problem. The easy availability is the issue. We are a soft touch.

The worst aspect is that we do not spend enough on those genuinely in need because benefits are handed to all and sundry. That is so infuriating! There needs to be a reallocation.
Easy availability? Have you ever seen a DLA application form? Its like a phonebook (Or was before they got rid of DLA)

The problem with reallocation is that everyone, whether they've got a limp from falling off a ladder or were born with one leg, has to go through reassessment, the people who quite clearly need it then run the very real risk of losing their only source of income, which thousands already have. They go through months and months of worry and stress, waiting for the assessment, going through it, waiting for the result, receiving the WRONG result, and then months and months of appealing to get their money that shoiuldnt have been taken off them in the first place, back.

It is a very cack handed way that the Government are dealing with it. They are punishing everyone for what in reality is about 1% of claimants who are taking the piss.
__________________


Add me on Goodreads here
Verbal is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 04:16 PM #10
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

Who is talking about DLA? Not me! And if my tax money is being handed out, I want thorough and proper scrutiny.

I specifically mentioned able-bodied people.... 2.5 million of them, sitting around drawing benefit while we import a million workers from E. Europe to do the jobs our home-grown benefits claimants don't feel like doing.
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 04:27 PM #11
Verbal's Avatar
Verbal Verbal is offline
Something inoffensive
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,655

Favourites (more):
BB15: Chris
CBB 13: Lionel Blair
Verbal Verbal is offline
Something inoffensive
Verbal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,655

Favourites (more):
BB15: Chris
CBB 13: Lionel Blair
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard View Post
Who is talking about DLA? Not me! And if my tax money is being handed out, I want thorough and proper scrutiny.

I specifically mentioned able-bodied people.... 2.5 million of them, sitting around drawing benefit while we import a million workers from E. Europe to do the jobs our home-grown benefits claimants don't feel like doing.
Skimming through the thread I clearly got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies.

My points are still valid though.
__________________


Add me on Goodreads here
Verbal is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:16 PM #12
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard View Post
Who is talking about DLA? Not me! And if my tax money is being handed out, I want thorough and proper scrutiny.

I specifically mentioned able-bodied people.... 2.5 million of them, sitting around drawing benefit while we import a million workers from E. Europe to do the jobs our home-grown benefits claimants don't feel like doing.
Where do yo get the figure of 2.5 million?

The most recent figures I have managed to find are around about 1.5 million claimants of JSA.

Of which those claiming for more than 10 years is around 1000.

The vast majority of JSA claims are temporary. Which, I think most would agree, is what JSA is for: a temporary support for people not in work until they can find work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload.../2013-1248.pdf

Quote:
Number of JSA claimants and of which those with current continuous
claim of over 10 years: August 2012
Number of claimants 1,471,070 Of which those with current
claim of over 10 years 1,070

Source: DWP Information, Governance and Security, Work and Pensions
Longitudinal Study
1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
2. Coverage: All cases in payment in Great Britain. This excludes cases
in Northern Ireland.
3. Data is at August 2012 which is the latest data available.


I would encourage people to read some of the excellent research that's available online, which shows how these myths arise, and how they are used in the political sphere.

This one's an interesting piece: worth checking out the studies in the bibliography at the end.

http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-a...of_welfare.pdf

As is this, though a lot of it draws on the same research as the above:

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/mythbuster-welfare-reform/

Last edited by DanaC; 28-07-2013 at 05:25 PM.
DanaC is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:30 PM #13
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
Where do yo get the figure of 2.5 million?
http://wwe.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23340165

Not all the unemployed get JSA. Some are on other benefits.

The 2.5 million figure does not include those on disability benefits.
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:35 PM #14
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

However, my point is that we should not have to import a million, mainly unskilled, workers from the EU to do jobs that should be done by UK benefits claimants.
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:35 PM #15
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
Default

Funnily enough not all those on JSA are actually unemployed. If you have a part-time job of 16 hours or less and continue to claim JSA and Housing benefit, then you still count as technically unemployed and are still expected to seek full-time work.
DanaC is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:36 PM #16
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

And funnily enough some benefits claimants do cash in hand work!
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:38 PM #17
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard View Post
However, my point is that we should not have to import a million, mainly unskilled, workers from the EU to do jobs that should be done by UK benefits claimants.
I'm not sure we're actually 'importing' them
DanaC is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:40 PM #18
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
CaudleHalbard CaudleHalbard is offline
Platinum Member
CaudleHalbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
I'm not sure we're actually 'importing' them
There should be virtually no jobs for EU workers to come here for.
CaudleHalbard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 05:45 PM #19
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
DanaC DanaC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,038

Favourites:
BB14: Gina
Default

I hear what you're saying. But this sort of thing is rarely as simple as it appears at first glance.

For example: a lot of those unskilled jobs are done by people from eastern Europe because they are not eligible to claim benefits. Now, you could say that this is an argument for removing benefits from Uk citizens in order to force them to take these jobs on. But...the wages paid for a lot of these jobs are so terribly low that the only reason anybody would take them is out of sheer desperation. The reason employers are able to pay such low wages is because there is a pool of very desperate people.

To me it seems wrong to force people into work that is deeply exploitative. Nobody in this country in this century should have to work for wages that wouldn't be out of place in the third world.

I am currently looking for a part time job to help get through the final year of my phd. Some of the jobs I have seen advertised are terribly badly paid. In particular the wages that young people are expected to work for are appalling. 'Apprentice telesales' at £2 an hour.

The problem isn't that we are a nation of workshy layabouts, it's that we have very little protection for workers. The weight of power is entirely towards the employers. They have no need to offer better wages, because there is always somebody desperate enough that they will work for peanuts. All we do by reducing benefits and making it harder to claim is increase that pool of desperate people and increase the number of employers offering appalling wages. There is no incentive for employers to increase the amount they pay.

Eventhe 'minimum wage' is ridiculously insufficient. Which is why large numbers of people who are in work also have to claim benefits. It's a ridiculous situation that leads to the state effectively subsidising the cost of employing workers.

Last edited by DanaC; 28-07-2013 at 05:49 PM.
DanaC is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 08:12 PM #20
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...in-facts-myths

There's a lot of mythmaking around benefits in this country.

Everyone knows, anecdotally, someone who is gaming the system. But the reality is that fraud is statistically very low within our system.

The vast majority of people claiming benefits do so because they are in need. The vast majority of those who do so are living in poverty. More disturbingly, the majority of those are claiming in-work benefits.

The notion that many people are living it up on the public purse is false. I find it disturbing that as a nation we show more anger towards those who claim benefits than we do towards those who have actually broken the country. I also find it sad that in order to make being in work a better option than being on benefits, our answer is to strip away that help instead of push up wages. The only reason some are better off on benefits than in work is because working wages have stagnated resulting in a real term drop. The lower wages go in relation to the cost of living, the more likely it is that staying on benefits will be better than being in work. The answer to this is to make work pay more not to make benefits pay less.
ive heard that argument word for word on the mainstream and matthew wright and so on almost every day........but im looking at specifics please
what do they earn? this chap tells me its £750 a week....is that the right amount in your opinion?
the truth is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 08:14 PM #21
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicky. View Post
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

Check for yourself.

To me at first glance, that looks to be about 200 quid per week over what they should get. Unless they are disabled or the kids are disabled.


As for the cap I am honestly torn. As generally, the majority of peoples benefits is housing benefit (especially if they live near london) so I think a better way to do it would be to introduce rent caps. Would stop buy to let landlords ripping people off so much. And would also benefit those working too.
landlords get ripped off too all the time
what happens to properties ruined by bad tenants? they never ever get dmaages as the tenants move their housing benefits elsewhere and claim they cant afford to pay damages
the truth is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 08:17 PM #22
Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 64,791


Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 64,791


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the truth View Post
landlords get ripped off too all the time
what happens to properties ruined by bad tenants? they never ever get dmaages as the tenants move their housing benefits elsewhere and claim they cant afford to pay damages
Isnt that what bonds and such are for?

I am not just talking about those on benefits, but everyone gets ripped off for properties in certain parts of the country.

As for 'moving benefits elsewhere an claim they cant afford to pay damage'..you would be extremely hard pushed to find a landlord who will take claimants on benefits without a guarantor.

Last edited by Vicky.; 28-07-2013 at 08:18 PM.
Vicky. is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 08:21 PM #23
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
I hear what you're saying. But this sort of thing is rarely as simple as it appears at first glance.

For example: a lot of those unskilled jobs are done by people from eastern Europe because they are not eligible to claim benefits. Now, you could say that this is an argument for removing benefits from Uk citizens in order to force them to take these jobs on. But...the wages paid for a lot of these jobs are so terribly low that the only reason anybody would take them is out of sheer desperation. The reason employers are able to pay such low wages is because there is a pool of very desperate people.

To me it seems wrong to force people into work that is deeply exploitative. Nobody in this country in this century should have to work for wages that wouldn't be out of place in the third world.

I am currently looking for a part time job to help get through the final year of my phd. Some of the jobs I have seen advertised are terribly badly paid. In particular the wages that young people are expected to work for are appalling. 'Apprentice telesales' at £2 an hour.

The problem isn't that we are a nation of workshy layabouts, it's that we have very little protection for workers. The weight of power is entirely towards the employers. They have no need to offer better wages, because there is always somebody desperate enough that they will work for peanuts. All we do by reducing benefits and making it harder to claim is increase that pool of desperate people and increase the number of employers offering appalling wages. There is no incentive for employers to increase the amount they pay.

Eventhe 'minimum wage' is ridiculously insufficient. Which is why large numbers of people who are in work also have to claim benefits. It's a ridiculous situation that leads to the state effectively subsidising the cost of employing workers.

complete and utter nonsense. how on earth do you figure the weight of power is all with the employer? theres 1000s of laws protecting workers, employers take all of the risks, financially, spirtitually, in terms of their lives and their health and their families when they invest in a business and create jobs...without these risk takking entrepreneurs we would have no real jobs, no opportunities and no wealth....there is virtually no support for small business at all in the UK....they have to ride by the seat of their pants for the first 5 years of any company they start and there is zero fincancial support from banks at all now....small busineses even with awesome credit ratings get no financial loans at all....why ? 2 reasons....the banks went bust because 1) deregulation on wall street/city of London/property/banking 2) the greed and irresponsibility of those individuals who overspent on credit for years without a thought of how to pay for it

who suffers? the working people and the risk taking small business owners

there is no risk at all for people who have children and don't work.....clearly they get everything free and get an income that can run to £36,000 tax free+
the truth is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 08:22 PM #24
Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 64,791


Vicky. Vicky. is offline
0_o
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 64,791


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the truth View Post
ive heard that argument word for word on the mainstream and matthew wright and so on almost every day........but im looking at specifics please
what do they earn? this chap tells me its £750 a week....is that the right amount in your opinion?
Unless someone in the family is disabled, they do not get 750 per week.

Also, even if they were working (assuming minimum wage job) they would still be able to claim around 450ish in child benefits (child tax credit + child benefit)..but they would get working tax credit too..so would probably be claiming more than they are now.

Last edited by Vicky.; 28-07-2013 at 08:22 PM.
Vicky. is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 28-07-2013, 08:23 PM #25
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicky. View Post
Isnt that what bonds and such are for?

I am not just talking about those on benefits, but everyone gets ripped off for properties in certain parts of the country.

As for 'moving benefits elsewhere an claim they cant afford to pay damage'..you would be extremely hard pushed to find a landlord who will take claimants on benefits without a guarantor.
where are all these people going to find guarantors
the truth is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
families, welfare

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts