Not All DSS Tenants Are Bad Tenants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by Welshie View Post
    You probably think homelessness in the UK is a myth or the person is just lazy.
    a) Clearly you have not considered what I wrote.
    b) I am about as far from being "Far Right" as you can imagine. In fact I have spent most of my life dealing with problems of fascist extremism (much of which is exhibited by the "far left"). But you can define words to mean what you want them to mean, and make as many assumptions as you like. The fact remains that 99% of the world's poor would be disgusted by your assertion that your example is of someone in "poverty" stricken or otherwise -- and it is a disgusting word to apply to your example given actual poverty.

    Comment


      #62
      Again, didn't use that as an example of extreme poverty. But keep on with your rhetoric if it makes you happy. That example, had everything to do with the fact that Housing Benefit can be paid to full time working people and nothing to do with poverty. The fact that someone would need to claim with that, just goes to show the issues in this country.

      Most of the world (me included) would be disgusted to think that you think someone with 30k in cash is considered extreme poverty.

      I did consider what you wrote and your attitude that people shouldn't be claiming housing benefit, they should get a job and stop being lazy just goes to show the attitude you have.

      1.6m people using a food bank last year and there is probably a lot more people in poverty that haven't used them. Your daily mail attitude that these people are just lazy doesn't help. There are people in this country, in many country's, struggling to earn a living wage, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to feed themselves and their kids. And no, my example given in addition to your 2 examples is not one of them.

      I think I understand the problem though. I was discussing 2 separate issues in one post, quoting 2 of your posts in the same post. You weren't able to distinguish between 2 separate talking points. Next time, I'll do 2 separate posts so you can grasp the concept of what I'm trying to get across.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Welshie View Post
        Most of the world (me included) would be disgusted to think that you think someone with 30k in cash is considered extreme poverty.
        Eh... Now this is just getting silly (and unintelligible).

        Comment


          #64
          Seems to me that if nurses and other 'lowly' staffers in the NHS have to rely on HB to pay their rent because their wages are too low, it's a daft thing! After all, both their wages, and the HB they claim, come from the taxpayer. So why not just pay them sufficiently to be able to afford their housing costs without HB...

          I know the answer of course - 'not my budget' will claim the various state-paid entities involved....

          But to the ultimate payer - ie, the taxpayer - it really doesn't matter whether the money such employees need comes from their wages, or their HB. The bill is the same to us.

          Comment


            #65
            it's an interesting point about why all the 'new unemployed' aren't rushing to the fruit and veg farms to pick the crops that are unpicked right now. I did read various reports that farms are now 'over-subscribed' by such eager recruits, and, conversely, that they aren't - and that crop picking is an arduous and exhausting job (which I'm sure it is).

            Surely the only reason foreigners come to pick them is that (a) they are grateful for any job at all however hard or badly paid, because 'at home' their prospects are worse and (b) it's actually NOT as badly paid for foreigners as it would be for UK citizens because of labour arbitrage - ie, that wages here, however low, stretch further in low cost countries where they live (lots of tails about Polish cleaners building up portfolios of property back home where it's nice and cheap, etc)

            Whether (a) is 'justifiable' I'm not sure, but I guess (b) is justifiable. In reverse, Brits do this when they become expats in the Gulf or whatever, earning pots of money they then bring back to the UK to have a better quality of life than they could on British salaries.

            If (a) IS justifiable, then I guess using the new unemployed to replace foreign fruit/veg pickers is OK ,even if it's hard work and poor wages??????

            Or, of course, one could just let market forces adjust wages, and pay them more to recruit them more eagerly, and then we pay more for fruit and veg. (But, ironically, considering obesity is one of the key factors in Covid mortality, maybe expensive food is no bad thing??!) (sadly, the fruit and veg are probably the healthiest of our intake.)

            Comment


              #66
              Because the cost of living varies across global economies, can we ever put pound/dollar signs around 'absolute poverty'?/

              I do agree that most of the western world is 'spoilt', and that we, however 'poor' enjoy a standard of living, a state safety net, that even our own ancestors would envy us for, let alone the 'global poor'.....

              It also raises the ever-thorny 'Victorian' issue of the 'deserving and non-deserving' poor! Plus, and I'm sure economists have a name for this, but I don't know what it is, when 'the poor' spend their scarce money on things they 'shouldn't. In Victorian times it was booze (tsk tsk tsk) and maybe these days its Sky Telly or whatever. Both are 'unnecessary', but condemnation fails to take into account the principle that we spend any 'surplus' on ways that bring most pleasure, and are most attainable.

              I sometimes think that, if the same principle were applied to the middle classes, we would be berated for wasting out money on things like holidays, haircuts and buying stuff from John Lewis, when we should be practising assiduous capital accumulation so as - eventually! - to be able to afford, say, a light aircraft, or a yacht. These things are SO unattainable to us, that we'd rather 'squander' our surplus on 'rubbish goodies' etc etc.

              Comment


                #67
                The fruit picking discussion is complicated by accommodation.

                If you are prepared to move to a different (and possibly unwelcome) country to earn money to pick fruit and veg, living collectively in a hostel for several months has plusses as well as minuses.
                And it's part of the overall package.

                Moreover, these jobs move about - the fruit and veg pickers are something else somewhere else for different times of the year, so it's normal.

                If you're moving from elsewhere in the UK, you get all the negatives of living in a hostel and there are fewer positives.
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
                  I sometimes think that, if the same principle were applied to the middle classes, we would be berated for wasting out money on things like holidays, haircuts and buying stuff from John Lewis, when we should be practising assiduous capital accumulation so as - eventually! - to be able to afford, say, a light aircraft, or a yacht. These things are SO unattainable to us, that we'd rather 'squander' our surplus on 'rubbish goodies' etc etc.
                  I don't get this point. A light aircraft or a yacht (unless used for investment, which I don't think was intended here) is an non-essential luxury item. I don't see why people would be criticised for buying consumer goods / services and foregoing the opportunity to potentially buy luxury big-ticket items at some point in the future.
                  There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    I was trying to find a way of showing how, for the middle classes (however they're defined!), the aim of, one day, owning their own home is regarded as 'achievable', and that to achieve it, some sacrifice of indulging in 'goodies' like holidays or haircuts or meals out, etc, is considered 'worth it'.

                    Whereas for the working class (again, however they are defined), the whole idea of 'one fine day' owning their own home is seen as SO unachievable, it would be like the middle classes aspiring hopelessly to own a luxury yacht..

                    I, as a middle class person (!) wouldn't 'waste' my life scraping money to buy a yacht - it's just too 'far off', and I can understand, in that respect, why a 'working class' person could feel the same way about aiming to own their own home.

                    I'm sure economists have a term for it (and probably an equation!)....the point at which something becomes SO expensive relative to income that one just doesn't both trying to accumulate the necessary capital, and just blows it on 'goodies' instead.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
                      Seems to me that if nurses and other 'lowly' staffers in the NHS have to rely on HB to pay their rent because their wages are too low, it's a daft thing! After all, both their wages, and the HB they claim, come from the taxpayer. So why not just pay them sufficiently to be able to afford their housing costs without HB...

                      I know the answer of course - 'not my budget' will claim the various state-paid entities involved....

                      But to the ultimate payer - ie, the taxpayer - it really doesn't matter whether the money such employees need comes from their wages, or their HB. The bill is the same to us.
                      These same NHS staff, and other low paid staff, who receive housing benefit are also the same people who many landlords won’t rent to because they receive housing benefit. Many people who care for society, which includes people who have studied for years to provide that care, earn a low wage, and therefore receive housing benefit and can’t find a landlord willing to rent to them. My daughter is one of these people. She paid for her university education for 5 years to care for society, but the housing benefit she needs to claim in order to meet the market rates in rent cause her to be turned away.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X