Should people on benefits be allowed to use their benefits to buy property.

[spygirl]

Round me, theres only two sort if people in social / LHA housing - old people who've done fuckall during their life and single mums.

Ones way too old to lend money to.

The others just useless and dependent on school age kids for income. As soon as Chelsee hits 18, fat Shazza money drops to NMW.

Neither can afford a house.

 Neither vote

The days of nice, functional working people in social housing are long gone.

Thers no money set aside for this, so it's not happening.

The target for Cons should be targetting young, working people in the PRS.

Hitting LLs and cutting benefits to fat Shazza appeals to those.

[goldbug9999]

23 hours ago, apples said:

1. Give all my savings to a mate / convert to cash and hide under the mattress
2. Claim all the means-tested benefits the savings disqualified me from, costing the taxpayer more
3. Get my mate / mattress to give me my savings back to put in the special deposit account
4. ???
5. Profit

Do I even need to buy a taxpayer-subsidized house for step 5?

What stops me doing this? I have a very low income but lots of savings, so currently can't claim any benefits.

(except my conscience / not wanting to be part of the problem)

You need to move your savings either off grid or into something non means testable: bitcoin (*), jewellery / physical gold, actual cash (*), collectables such as fine art, classic cars (*), antiques etc.

* - my personal choices .

[Long time lurking]

On 09/06/2022 at 09:42, Wight Flight said:

Gove had a solution to that on JHB this morning.

They will create a special savings vehicle that is outside the scope of the £16k cap where people on benefits can save a deposit.

If they can save up a house deposit, benefits are too high FFS!

Is this not also about the new right to buy ? if so and it`s the same as the last time where by the tenant gets a discount ,why would a deposit be needed 

[A_P]

3 hours ago, spygirl said:

The days of nice, functional working people in social housing are long gone

what like these days?

[spygirl]

33 minutes ago, A_P said:

what like these days?

No.

Uptil the 80s you needed to be employed, have a good reputation and be local.

 

 

[RJT1979]

3 hours ago, spygirl said:

No.

Uptil the 80s you needed to be employed, have a good reputation and be local.

 

 

Local you say

[PatronizingGit]

On 09/06/2022 at 08:55, Bilbo said:

Do you remember this;

Before 6 April 2018, Support for Mortgage Interest was paid in the form of a benefit. However, now it is paid as a loan. You have to pay interest on the amount of loan help provided.

The government paying your interest only mortgage. 

The government buying off their bankster mates bad investment choices.

[PatronizingGit]

12 hours ago, spygirl said:

Round me, theres only two sort if people in social / LHA housing - old people who've done fuckall during their life and single mums.

Ones way too old to lend money to.

The others just useless and dependent on school age kids for income. As soon as Chelsee hits 18, fat Shazza money drops to NMW.

Neither can afford a house.

 Neither vote

The days of nice, functional working people in social housing are long gone.

Thers no money set aside for this, so it's not happening.

The target for Cons should be targetting young, working people in the PRS.

Hitting LLs and cutting benefits to fat Shazza appeals to those.

Heavy assumption there the tories still have any connection to such quaint notions.

[Don Coglione]

Blimey. Jeremy Vine just put Therese Coffey on the spot over this, pointing out that he had received lots of messages from the Just About Managings, screaming that they had to pay rent out of income and that they would be better off going onto benefits.

Cue much mumbling and shuffling of feet. Vine let her off.

[Ash4781b]

So will the eligible properties be converted office /retail units or only newbuild crazy expensive things ? 

[SillyBilly]

I would imagine the dingy people will be pleased to hear once they're out of the 4 star hotel, they're not just getting a council owned property to live in, oh no, the British taxpayer will also buy it for them now. British generation rent just need to get used to the idea, go to work to pay two peoples' mortgages, the rentier who owns the property you live in and the illegal next door.

[tank]

On 09/06/2022 at 19:33, jamtomorrow said:

Confirms what I've long thought - this lot are Tory in name only. The whole point of 80s Right to Buy was the link to self-reliance. This latest wheeze removes the last such link.

They're very much heirs to Thatcher's legacy in my books as the whole point of RTB was to financialise housing, create more private landlords and pump GDP. 

It was SOLD by Britain's greatest ever con woman as a self reliance wheeze, the 'home owning democracy' BS. That was never the real reason. The fact that most of the same ex LA stock is now in the hands of private landlords says it all. 

Her man Lawson's boom exposed the Tories' true colours on housing and this set the course for the likes of Brown and the current mob to rinse and repeat via added props like mass immigration.

Edited June 16 by tank

[The XYY Man]

On 10/06/2022 at 07:23, spygirl said:

Round me, theres only two sort if people in social / LHA housing - old people who've done fuckall during their life and single mums.

Ones way too old to lend money to.

The others just useless and dependent on school age kids for income. As soon as Chelsee hits 18, fat Shazza money drops to NMW.

Neither can afford a house.

 Neither vote

The days of nice, functional working people in social housing are long gone.

Thers no money set aside for this, so it's not happening.

The target for Cons should be targetting young, working people in the PRS.

Hitting LLs and cutting benefits to fat Shazza appeals to those.

The delicious irony here is that the attitude of cunts like you created "Fat Shazza" in the first place.

That you are too fucking stupid to understand that makes it even better.

 

XYY

 

[Frank Hovis]

9 hours ago, tank said:

They're very much heirs to Thatcher's legacy in my books as the whole point of RTB was to financialise housing, create more private landlords and pump GDP. 

It was SOLD by Britain's greatest ever con woman as a self reliance wheeze, the 'home owning democracy' BS. That was never the real reason. The fact that most of the same ex LA stock is now in the hands of private landlords says it all. 

Her man Lawson's boom exposed the Tories' true colours on housing and this set the course for the likes of Brown and the current mob to rinse and repeat via added props like mass immigration.

 

The primary aim of RTB when it was introduced IMHO was to address the shocking state of council housing at the time.  Councils have always under-invested in their housing so it becomes steadily worse.  This is partly because of the restrictions of the Housing Revenue Account and partly because councils can dump lots of admin costs into it from other areas rather than spend the money on repairs.

RTB provided funds for refurbishment of the remaining stock.

Despite this, however, the council housing stock became steadily worse.  This was solved at a stroke by block transfers to Housing Associations who only dealt with housing, so didn't divert money elsehwere, and could borrow at low rates, secured on the housing stock, to refurbish and build.

As soon as the opportunity for transfer became available RTB should have been stopped; it was however seen as a vote winner by providing huge bribes in the form of discounts to tenants.  Or conversely a vote loser if those discounts were taken away.

Wales and Scotland have sensibly halted all RTB.

Mad Boris however is now trying to extend it from council housing, and retained previous tenants of council housing who transferred to HAs, to HAs in England.

It's a bribe pure and simple.  And taxpayers will be funding it.

[BWW]

On 15/06/2022 at 22:24, SillyBilly said:

I would imagine the dingy people will be pleased to hear once they're out of the 4 star hotel, they're not just getting a council owned property to live in, oh no, the British taxpayer will also buy it for them now. British generation rent just need to get used to the idea, go to work to pay two peoples' mortgages, the rentier who owns the property you live in and the illegal next door.

Because someone who's worked hard their whole life to take care of their family but was unfortunate enough to be born somewhere they were treated so badly they had to flee does not deserve that.

Whereas some shazza fat cunt opens her legs for a horny twat who's had too many beers and produces unfortunate kids who are then neglegted and create the next generations of the same in some sort of horror show pyramid scheme does derserve it?

Our benefits sytem should not be what it is but if one of those two get something from it, I know which one I'd choose.

[Wight Flight]

8 hours ago, BWW said:

Because someone who's worked hard their whole life to take care of their family but was unfortunate enough to be born somewhere they were treated so badly they had to flee does not deserve that.

Whereas some shazza fat cunt opens her legs for a horny twat who's had too many beers and produces unfortunate kids who are then neglegted and create the next generations of the same in some sort of horror show pyramid scheme does derserve it?

Our benefits sytem should not be what it is but if one of those two get something from it, I know which one I'd choose.

I think you might have cherry-picked your examples.

[SillyBilly]

18 hours ago, BWW said:

Because someone who's worked hard their whole life to take care of their family but was unfortunate enough to be born somewhere they were treated so badly they had to flee does not deserve that.

Whereas some shazza fat cunt opens her legs for a horny twat who's had too many beers and produces unfortunate kids who are then neglegted and create the next generations of the same in some sort of horror show pyramid scheme does derserve it?

Our benefits sytem should not be what it is but if one of those two get something from it, I know which one I'd choose.

I agree. It shouldn't be either. Britain cannot be responsible for hard luck stories around the globe. And a shitshow of domestic policy creating a legion of internal dependents doesn't change that, in fact makes it harder.

[23rdian]

On 09/06/2022 at 09:11, GTM said:

https://www.entitledto.co.uk/

The biggest mistake I made about a decade ago was plugging some numbers in here and realising I wouldn't be much worse off (about £100 a month at most) if I worked 16 hours a week (TCs, so no issues with savings over £16K). That can't possibly last thought I and carried on working full time.

What. A. Fucking. Idiot. I. Was.

I'm still telling myself it can't possibly last. 

I think I am right in thinking that with UC they fixed this particular glitch? Annoyingly I got suitable hours too late if so.

Edited June 17 by 23rdian

[Frank Hovis]

On 17/06/2022 at 19:20, 23rdian said:

I think I am right in thinking that with UC they fixed this particular glitch? Annoyingly I got suitable hours too late if so.

 

Yes, that's my understanding.

However some are still riding that particular cash bonanza for a couple of years yet as they were already on tax credits and can stay on them until they are switched over to UC in I think 2024.

[Calcutta]

Is Bojo still thinking of giving this bonkers plan a shot? 

I mean I could save and earn for a couple more years and buy outright, but why bother when I can pay like an 80% deposit, go part time and let the taxpayer pay off what's left? 

Asking for a friend....