|
|
Post by cayo on Jun 29, 2012 19:05:52 GMT
If people on jobseekers dont apply for jobs and dont go to interviews ect when told and the work experiance ect they do get their benefit stopped and council housing is no longer available to anyone just because they are pregnant that has been stopped to a great extent you have to be virtually homeless these days to get a council house because the torys sold most off and refuse to build more social and affordable houseing ,another reason out hb payments are so high because we pay private landlords over the odds for rented property because of the huge increase in demand for rented houseing due to lack of council houses the price of houses went through the roof leaving first time buyers and the low paid unable to ever get their own house and so the circle goes on and will get worse and worse if we dont start building more council houses ,building them will also provide much needed jobs and aid kick starting the econamy .
|
|
|
|
Post by taxpayer on Jun 29, 2012 19:16:17 GMT
 Makes my blood boil this.................. 17 year old girlar ound here, had her won horse, mother had holidays abroad regurarly, who had two fellas on the go. New mercedes outside the house.....get the jist........... 17 year old no intentions of working gets pregnant, to a lad who flits from one job to another, nice lad, gullable........... horse still around..........has jst been handed the keys to a council home and benefits...................WHY ..............Because they have benefits!
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 20:04:35 GMT
You may well be convinced taxpayer but I am a taxpayer like you and never had a penny in benefits and neither has a single member of my family with I should add the exception child benefit which everyone gets. Which as my family paid top rate tax when I was young which at times was 90% and both my Husband and I worked full time for 36 years so far so have more than paid back any child benefit I may have been given.
My kids have worked since they were 14 and have always paid their way and still pay their taxes.
Houses are not normal round here for single mums the odd homeless one gets a b&b place for a while but only if they are on the street with no parents or an unsafe environment at home..
Housing benefit only helps slum landlords and the greedy people that collect houses and rent them out to claimants at extortionate rents
If and I repeat if all these so called scroungers can afford material goods then they contribute to the tax pot anyway in VAT and purchase tax.
If they are buying british goods and services they contribute to growth
|
|
|
|
Post by sageandonion on Jun 29, 2012 20:12:12 GMT
taxpayer you are funny and very very intelligent. Sometime you are talking bullocks now. Saying it is ok for scroungers to buy material goods with our money because they are giving us 20% back. Please do shut up.
I have just watched that Grime programme, it was featured in Dagenham and the Housing Manager went into a council house where the occupants had actually been evicted. He was partly concerned because there was evidence children had been living there and no application had been made for a bigger house.
It was filthy, I mean you would not have let your dog live in there with drug stuff all over the place, filthy needles etc.
Now how the hell did these people get a council house and don't tell me they were not getting housing benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 20:35:38 GMT
Just because you dont agree doesnt mean there is any need to be rude.
It was I believe a tongue in cheek statement a true one but not perhaps a good one.
Yes there are filthy people living in social housing just as there are in every walk of life wouldnt be much of a programme if they showed you all the clean and tidy well maintained ones would it.
Like everything there are good and bad in all walks of life and the media only pick out the things that are easily sensationalised
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 20:36:10 GMT
Well, both my neighbours are on incapacity benefit, both in council homes with benefit paying the rent. Both have children aged over 18 living at home, but still seem to get their benefits the same? Not sure how that works. By the way, my house is a mortgaged, privately bought ex-council property.
Both neighbours have 2011 registered cars, on the motability scheme. Both sets of neighbours have "unseen" incapacities, which apparently are related to back injuries. One side has 3 dogs, the other 2. None get walked ever, they spend their lives making my life a misery with their constant barking.
One side has 2 foreign holidays a year with alarming regularity - always February half term and June half term. The dogs are left at home for the week in the yard at the side of their house, I assume someone must put food in (yes, I have reported to RSPCA but to no avail). Other side have a massive 6-berth caravan which obstructs the light from my kitchen. It is taken out every nice weekend and every holiday period.
Both neighbours with back injuries are capable of gardening, hedge cutting, weeding, carrying heavy bags, carrying heavy suitcases and heavy bags of chicken food that were delivered to their house by mistake.
Both houses were totally renovated by the council in 2010. When I say totally, the only thing they didn't do was rebuild the outer walls. The whole interior was gutted, new bathroom, new kitchen, all redecorated, new heating system, new doors and windows, new driveway. Both houses are in a disgusting state now, very dirty and messy. Both gardens, front and back, are like the Amazon jungle and are a disgrace to the street, which by and large has neat gardens.
I am making a wild assumption that both my neighbours are, to some degree, on the fiddle. As far as I am aware, when their kids reach 18, they either have to move out, or benefits get cut. Yet one has a 21 year old daughter who owns a lovely 100cc scooter (new) and who works in a clothes shop part time. The other has a 19 year old lad who works in the local Macdonalds, and a 21 year old daughter who does very little. I don't understand how the older children are still there, yet the benefits remain unchanged?
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 20:40:28 GMT
Cases are being cited but if it concerns you report them and have them investigated. If they are fraudulent thing may be changed and some of the money recovered
|
|
|
|
Post by sageandonion on Jun 29, 2012 20:43:07 GMT
Have you reported this to the benefit line nia? You ought to, you don't have to reveal your identity. This all needs to be stopped.
sometime I wasn't being rude, very restrained I thought regarding a most ridiculous and, when its my money being spent, offensive comment.
Aside from these people stealing from the taxpayer, they are making life impossible for those people who are entitled to benefit.
|
|
kayjayem
Happy to help....a lot
Posts: 10,046
|
Post by kayjayem on Jun 29, 2012 20:44:08 GMT
Because they wouldn't be "real" jobs as such. It would be a way of getting the people on benefits to actually do something for it. they would only get the basic benefit. It wouldn't affect hardworking people at all because it wouldn't really be a bona fide job Of course it would affect the hard working people because by having a business employ somebody for free you are taking away the opportunity for new hard working people to come in and there is less likely for a new position to come available. Volunteer work for a charity yes but actually working in a money making business is only going to create a higher level of unemployment If you read my original post you will see that I was referring to working within the community for the council, doing jobs which are not being done at present due to shortage of staff!! |
|
|
|
Post by amumwithapony on Jun 29, 2012 20:46:22 GMT
Sometime, please don't be put off from posting on this thread by our rude guest.
I don't agree with your points on this thread but no one should be made to feel intimidated from replying to what is an interesting debate.
Taxpayer, whilst many may agree with your views I will thank you to keep your replies civil. They are extreme views and equally as valuable to this thread as any other as long as they are presented in a civil manner. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 29, 2012 20:47:18 GMT
Have you reported this to the benefit line nia? You ought to, you don't have to reveal your identity. This all needs to be stopped. Yes, to no avail. I am also trying (to no avail) to get the council to repair the trashed fence between myself and one of the houses. It is broken, dangerous with nails sticking out, bits of splintered wood sticking out etc. It allows his dogs to come through if they get loose - they have to keep them attached to a piece of washing line, or else they escape and are dangerous. They have attacked my chickens once before - had dog warden out, nothing happened. The fence is on the council house's property. I have offered to share the cost with my neighbour but he refused. Council have been out to look at it twice, but never actually repair it. Its driving me nuts. And if someone has a shotgun, please bring it to me! |
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 20:49:48 GMT
S&O that is your opinion and I support your right to hold it but it doesnt give you the right to abuse mine.
Anyway I note we agree that anyone who knows of abuse of the system should report it
I hope there is someone left in the system to investigate it
|
|
kayjayem
Happy to help....a lot
Posts: 10,046
|
Post by kayjayem on Jun 29, 2012 20:53:42 GMT
It doesnt start at home because the parents are not doing it so it has to start at an early age at school. How can parent that are the product of long term unemployment possibly teach children about the values and morality of working Maybe these parents should be made to attend classes in social awareness for their benefits! |
|
|
|
Post by piaffe on Jun 29, 2012 20:54:53 GMT
wouldn't hold your breath about them doing any thing. I have frequently reported my neighbor who is allegedly living alone. Her boyfriend has been their since the day she moved in,3 years ago .
I even heard her telling one person on the door step she had never heard of him and lived alone. To which the guy just left. He also grows canibis plants and sneaks them out under bin bags at night. Also reported.
The council don't want to know. As long as the government pays the rent they really don't give a ****.
|
|
|
|
Post by sink estates on Jun 29, 2012 20:56:01 GMT
cayo im sorry but you are talking rubbish about housing - for the last 10 - 15 years there has been a rule in place that all large housing developments have to give back 25% in social housing. Therefore the housing associations have grown and grown there are thousands of extra houses available and in lots of areas housing is plentiful, combined with the new council bidding procedure where you basically choose on line where you want to live and in some cases you apply for individual properties that way.
Housing association tennants get cheap rent and very good qulity properties fully maintained by their landlords, makes you wonder why anyone bothers to work and get a mortgage!
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 29, 2012 21:08:17 GMT
Yes sink estates there are many social houses and most are equivalent rent to any private landlords some are part share houses where the rent may be low but the occupants are paying a mortgage as well Especially those on the brand new 25% scheme.
There is still a huge shortage of social houses so certainly in this area Cayo is quite right
Kayjayem that is one use of benefits that I would support any education that make the next generations more responsible would get my vote I may even agree that non attendance should result in benefits being replaced by food vouchers Even though that is hard to police
|
|
|
|
Post by TAXPAYER on Jun 29, 2012 21:24:46 GMT
Patronising comes to mind with that reply amumwithapony.
Sageandonion, that was very kind of yo to acknowledge my intelligence, as i said previously we are both singing from the same hymn sheet ;D. I fully agree with everything that you and the majority have said on this thread.
I, like the majority, am sick to the back teeth of feeding, housing and clothing these , that it would seem have no morals, or conscinece to be able to keep taking money that they think they have a divine right to because they will nnot work! THE END>
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 30, 2012 0:10:31 GMT
To quote uk spending and local government
pensions account for 18% of spending 2011
Health 18%
Welfare 16%
defence 7%
education 13%
other 12%
and a small amount for transport interest and other sundries
these figures stay broadly the same throughout both governments with the exception of the thatcher years when defence budget was 12-13% and health dropped to 11%
So it would seem that at least for the past 40 years the welfare percentage hasnt changed much the only huge difference is the rise in defence spending at the expense of the health service in the Thatcher years
|
|
|
|
Post by cayo on Jun 30, 2012 5:37:23 GMT
Lycamobile has given Conservatives more than £300,000 in last nine months, but has paid no coporation tax for three years
A mobile phone company that has paid no corporation tax for three years has become the Conservatives' most generous corporate donor after giving more than £300,000 over the last nine months, new figures show.
Lycamobile, an £88m company based in Canary Wharf, gave more than £130,000 in donations between January and March this year, the latest Electoral Commission records show. This was on top of previous donations at the end of last year.
Insiders from the company have confirmed that most of the last quarter's money was spent on Boris Johnson's successful campaign to be re-elected as London mayor. Johnson has publicly praised Lycamobile's sim cards and mobile telephone technology, and the company's founder, Subaskaran Allirajah, has attended Tory party fundraising events with David Cameron.
According to the Electoral Commission figures, Lycamobile gave the Tories £34,350 cash and £97,262 in "non-cash sponsorship" between January and March.
The latter is believed to be the use of the company's offices for telephone canvassing. The Back Boris website shows that the campaign team called for volunteers to attend Lycamobile's offices on at least five occasions..
Johnson lavished praise on Lycamobile at the company's fifth birthday last July, telling journalists it was as dynamic as London itself and joking that its technology was "unhackable".
Executives from the company also attended Ken Livingstone's fundraising events and discussed donating £100,000, but no money was handed over.
The latest available figures show the company did not pay any tax between 2008 and 2010, despite generating a turnover of between £47m and £88m.
Lycamobile's recent donations were accepted by the Tories on 19 March, while the company was under threat of being struck off by Companies House for failing to register its annual accounts. The move was suspended five days later following an intervention by the company.
The accounts are nearly two years late, but were filed last week, according to a spokesman. They have not yet appeared on the Companies House website. Lycamobile has said it did not pay taxes because it was "growing the business" and therefore had not generated taxable income.
A spokesman said the company had paid all taxes due. The delay in publishing this year's accounts was, he said, a result of a "very thorough" audit by Ernst & Young. The company said it had generated and paid taxable receipts in the UK for more than £54m in VAT as well as national insurance and PAYE contributions.
"We are pleased at the progress we have made both in gaining market share leadership and in terms of profitability, which will be reflected in the accounts. These tax losses are able to be carried forward and offset against future taxable profits," the spokesman said.
Lycamobile is a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). It was launched in 2005 and has companies in Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK – and recently launched in Australia. It is part of the Lyca Group of companies, which has around 60 different entities in Europe and Asia.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) issued Lycamobile with a formal warning earlier this month for breaching the country's Telecommunications Act. The authority found that the pay-as-you-go company had failed to provide accurate customer records, which contain listed and unlisted public phone numbers used for emergency calls and law enforcement.
Allirajah controls another company, Lycatel, which sells cheap international phone cards. Between 2008 and 2010 Lycatel had a turnover of £260m, but again paid no tax.
Cheap international calls are big business, as low-paid migrant workers look for the best rates to phone home.
what about these types of fraudsters they cost the country far more than we loose in misclaimed benefits in lost tax but thats ok i suppose
In July, Lycamobile issued an advertisement claiming: "Call India, Pakistan and Bangladesh landlines for only 1p a minute." The Advertising Standards Authority banned the ad for playing down the fact that rates increase after 15 minutes. In February, the company faced censure for issuing leaflets offering "1/2p a minute" international calls.
|
|
|
|
Post by cayo on Jun 30, 2012 5:54:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cayo on Jun 30, 2012 5:55:49 GMT
another piece from above artical and from what is being said on here it seems the government has achieved its goal
Hatred against those receiving benefits is out of control in Cameron's Britain. The Tories transformed a crisis of capitalism into a crisis of public spending, and determined that the most vulnerable would make the biggest sacrifices. But taking away support from the disabled, the unemployed and the working poor is not straightforward. It can only be achieved by a campaign of demonisation – to crush any potential sympathy. Benefit recipients must only appear as feckless, workshy scroungers, living in opulent quasi-mansions with wall-to-wall widescreen TVs, rampaging around the Canary Islands courtesy of handouts from the squeezed taxpayer. Benefit fraud does exist – according to Government estimates, it is worth less than 1 per cent of welfare spending – but the most extreme examples are passed off as representative, or as the "tip of the iceberg". The reality is all but airbrushed out of existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by cayo on Jun 30, 2012 6:15:21 GMT
Just because you dont agree doesnt mean there is any need to be rude. It was I believe a tongue in cheek statement a true one but not perhaps a good one. Yes there are filthy people living in social housing just as there are in every walk of life wouldnt be much of a programme if they showed you all the clean and tidy well maintained ones would it. Like everything there are good and bad in all walks of life and the media only pick out the things that are easily sensationalised Totally agree with all you say on this thread sometime ,are we now sugesting that only the the unemployed live dirty houses  |
|
|
|
Post by sageandonion on Jun 30, 2012 11:34:23 GMT
To summarise, are we all in agreement that there are a large number of people in this country living off benefits when they could well be working and something really does need to be done about it or do we have people disagreeing with that statement?
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 30, 2012 11:42:23 GMT
There are plenty of companies doing precisely the same with all the other political parties too, as was demonstrated by the "cash for honours" issue which arose under the last Government
And yet again, no-one is saying ALL benefits should disappear. We all recognise why we have, and need, a welfare system for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on hard times, through redundancy, illness or whatever. In those cases, which I am sure ARE the majority of cases, benefits are justified and that's what they are for.
What we object to is what seems to be an increasing hardcore of claimaints who see benefits as a lifestyle choice, families where staying at home on benefits is now occuring in the third or fourth generation. These are work-shy individuals who think the world owes them a living. And I could take you to whole estates in my town in which such people live. No-one should be able to spend their whole working life on benefits, unless they have a serious illness or disability that stops them from working.
As a quick JobCentre search has demonstrated, there ARE jobs around. Yes we know there are lots of applicants, but that's life. Take advantage of the free CV clinics which are advertised around the place, get some voluntary experience to put on that CV, and take control of your life. That is what we should be saying to people in their second decade on out-of-work benefits.
I found myself out of permenant work in 2010/11, but spent the year temping in lab jobs. I was never out of work for more than 6 weeks and at no point did I "sign on". I was signed up to 6 different agencies, did web searches every day and sent my CV on-spec to any company who looked like the right sort. I was kept employed at around £10 per hour for the whole year, but I did not want to continue temping forever, so retrained as a teacher. I have been to several interviews for teaching jobs, all of which take all day and which require extensive preparation. Work-shy individuals are not willing to put in that level of effort, but that is the effort required to get a job in 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 30, 2012 11:42:52 GMT
To summarise, are we all in agreement that there are a large number of people in this country living off benefits when they could well be working and something really does need to be done about it or do we have people disagreeing with that statement? I concur. |
|
|
|
Post by Erinx on Jun 30, 2012 11:48:37 GMT
To summarise, are we all in agreement that there are a large number of people in this country living off benefits when they could well be working and something really does need to be done about it or do we have people disagreeing with that statement? Aslong as its the people who aren't working that don't have a valid reason not to be working ( ie a carer) even the disabled could work depending on what the job is. But saying that what could be done? Surely it's not right just to get rid of benefits, people do need them after all. |
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 30, 2012 11:49:40 GMT
I would probably agree with part of that statement the bit I would dispute is that it is a large number. At 1% of benefit claimants it would be an almost negligible number. Most benefit fraudsters are support in their erroneous claims by very clever people and sometimes the benefit officers themselves.
So yes I would disagree with this statement.
If something is to be done about it the few need routing out and punishing so we need to employ more investigators not make them redundant in large numbers
|
|
|
|
Post by nia2311 on Jun 30, 2012 11:51:01 GMT
But Erinx - if we keep handing free money to people who have no intention of working, where is the incentive to start changing their behaviour? There is none.
Yes, a lot of disabled people can, and do work. I have disabled friends all of whom work. But we all are aware there are some people with such profound disabilities that they will not be able to have a job, unfortunately, and in those cases, benefits are justified, both for them and for their carers.
|
|
|
|
Post by sometime on Jun 30, 2012 12:07:33 GMT
Well off to earn a crust dont earn enough anymore to pay tax as I only do a little bit but it all helps and as OH is in full time work I am not nor would I contemplate being entitled to benefits even though I am disabled
|
|
|
|
Post by amumwithapony on Jun 30, 2012 12:25:54 GMT
You can't just get rid of benefits. There would be uproar to start with and you would end up with genuine, vulnerable families who need the benefits to feed and clothe themselves.
What you can do is start now on the next generation. So make JSA have a minimum age of 21 to encourage kids to stay on in education. Make new claimants to JSA attend course after course after course, full time hours to make working, even part time, more attractive than signing on.
Make Social Housing what it was supposed to be. A reward to working families, not a given to families who have no intention whatsoever of working. There is a massive shortage of ANY housing, never mind social housing and by making it unavailable to those who don't work it will do 2 things. It will make people want to work to get these houses and it will stimulate the private rented sector into providing properties which fall into the HB price range. This will stimulate the housing market again as buy to let landlords start buying property again, which in turn will stimulate the construction industry which will provide more jobs!
You need to break the cycle but you need to pick your place carefully. Start with the next generation and prevent the cycle from continuing.
|
|
Makes my blood boil this..................
