Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#1
Housing benefit at £22 billion
Haw long can we keep on paying for this
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#2
What's happening to all this taxpayers' money who's getting rich??
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#3
Do you mean this...
the government understates benefit fraud
http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/total-benefit-fraud/
"the government understates benefit fraud", but does not waste time defining what they mean by benefit fraud. They do not fail to give their areas of operation catchy names.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#4
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#5
no tom
I was thinking more after ww2 we built prefabs to help the housing shortages
£ 22 billion would build a lot of prefabs
Just Spinning the maths.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#6
Keith, housing benefits go to people who otherwise would not be able to pay their rent, or all of their rent.
It is connected partly to unemployment, partly to low pensions, partly to low incomes.
Housing benefits in their present quantification are a mirror-reflection of Government policy within the economy, and also of the policies of private employers.
So we'd have to get to the roots of the problem.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#7
|£22 billion a years is going to landlords of some Description or other
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#8
Well yes, Keith, the tenants pay the rent to landlords and in return get accommodation.
So actually, the housing benefits go to the tenants.
Once they pay their rent, the landlords do shopping with that money, or place it in the bank, and so the economy goes round.
If the State stopped paying housing benefits, that would be £22 billion less going in the economy.
Would you prefer it to go on bankers' bonuses?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#9
In many/most cases, housing benefit (rents) are paid direct to the landlords, which I believe is best; the problem is that a good percentage of landlords sign up to the the income side, but not the maintenance costs.
Whether their properties are tiny bedsits, flats/HMOs, too many have too many people living in them and I suspect, are not of the decent homes standard.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#10
In alot of cases the rent money goes to the tenants and they pay the landlord.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
Apart from alexander we all aware there has to be radical changes to the welfare budget
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#12
Thinking on this overnight, on the subject of HB fraud. Sub-letting fraud must be easier when the benefit is paid directly to the landlord.
But, on the whole there is no incentive for anybody involved to spill the beans; the only victim of note being DWP.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#13
sub-letting is still going on in the priory area making overcrowding of properties even worse.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#14
When I was in the shop we had an immigrant customer with a wad full of money (I would guess about £1000) who bought a settee that we delivered into a upstairs bedroom, we always assumed he was subletting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#15
The Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has initiated a war between the military and benefit receivers.
Is the Government now playing off Society against itself and preparing a "war of the poor", where one part starts taking the crumbs from the other?
http://news.sky.com/story/1059053/defence-sec-cut-welfare-not-troopsPaul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#16
Sorry Alex , first duty of any country is defence of the realm.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
surely the job of the defence secretary is to argue the case for money for his department not to say who should go without paul?
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#18
Messaging Howard & according to the BBC news has delivered the expected result. It's called differentation.
Watty
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#19
Paul, while I agree with defence of our Isles, the most important aspect has been our hitherto capability not to get involved in some massive war in some other country over something which does not concern us. Such as Syria.
If a reduced military has and can achieve this, then it was certainly worth while.
But if the Defence Secretary starts hyping up tensions between the Armed Forces and people receiving benefits, then he has hit rock bottom.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#20
It's more about benefit/welfare cheats and catching them, than cases of stopping the benefits to the genuine needy.
Roger