Not All DSS Tenants Are Bad Tenants

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

  • SOME_DSS_R_OK
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lizbeth
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • doobrey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lizbeth
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lizbeth
    replied
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Lizbeth
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Welshie
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Welshie
    replied
    You probably think homelessness in the UK is a myth or the person is just lazy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Welshie
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

    Certainly poverty is a real thing. Try telling the 99% of people on earth that are poorer living a mud hut with flies that your 1% top of the world person on 30K, with a TV and a car is in poverty. They would likely vomit in disgust and anger.

    The starting salary for a Junior doctor in this country is £27,000 (after receiving no salary for the 5 years before that).
    Hmmm where did I say that example was poverty stricken. If you're going to chat bs, at least don't put words in my mouth. My example was showing that your blinkered, daily mail reader view of people on Housing Benefit being unemployed and lazy is off the mark completely.

    Many NHS staff, nurses etc claim Housing Benefit. They work full time. They should be paid a wage that shouldn't require them to claim. But unfortunately that's not the case. Based on your extreme, far right views, you'd likely think they are lazy. That's your view right?

    You have absolutely no idea of poverty. You probably think poverty is not being able to have a second holiday in a year. I've seen a lot of your extremely passive aggressive posts that pretty much go along the lines of the world owes you everything and everyone is out to get you.

    Every country has poverty, which is something that shouldn't happen. But you have this unsual assumption that the UK can't have people in poverty. What was it you said, not sure why people claim HB, they should just find work and stop being lazy.

    Put down the daily mail, stop with the poor rhetoric and see that there is extreme poverty in this country.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by Welshie View Post
    Poverty is a real thing, it's not just something that is made up. You seem to have this mindset that poverty doesn't exist and anybody not earning enough to survive are lazy. 1.6m people in UK used food banks last year (about 2.4% of the population) and 1 in 7 people who use a food bank are employed.
    Certainly poverty is a real thing. Try telling the 99% of people on earth that are poorer living a mud hut with flies that your 1% top of the world person on 30K, with a TV and a car is in poverty. They would likely vomit in disgust and anger.

    The starting salary for a Junior doctor in this country is £27,000 (after receiving no salary for the 5 years before that).

    Leave a comment:


  • Welshie
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

    Let's make it simple

    Tenant 1 has 30K of cash in the bank, works in a decent job, has a life that will be hurt if they damage their reputation.

    Tenant 2 does not have 30K in the bank, does not work, and will not be further detrimented by getting a few CCJs
    Tenant 3 has £12k of cash in the bank, works in a decent job (lets say earning £30k a year), has a life that will be hurt if they damage their reputation. This tenant has a partner and 3 children.

    This tenant could easily be in receipt of Housing Benefit.

    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    Not sure why several million people need to be receiving Housing Benefit by the way, while our fruit is picked by Romanians and our Hotel toilets byPoles whilst our sweet little UK born kids stay at home - being too weak in the knees and too sensitive by far to do these jobs. The current fruit picking saga tells you everything you need to know about the sick state of our country and the ideation of a subset of the population.
    Probably because wages v cost of living (including rent) is disproportionate. Oh and Housing Benefit is not an unemployment benefit and it's both a working age and pension age benefit. Plenty of working age people and retired pensioners living on the breadline or under it.

    Poverty is a real thing, it's not just something that is made up. You seem to have this mindset that poverty doesn't exist and anybody not earning enough to survive are lazy. 1.6m people in UK used food banks last year (about 2.4% of the population) and 1 in 7 people who use a food bank are employed.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ed-kingdom-uk/
    https://www.trusselltrust.org/2019/1...at-food-banks/

    There are many people working full time who have to claim Housing Benefit, Tax Credits or Universal Credit to be able to pay their rent and survive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lizbeth
    replied
    "And the more protection that government gives tenants by making it harder for landlords to evict them (e.g removal of no-fault eviction), the more difficult it is likely to be for them to rent anywhere in the first place. Such measures are well-intentioned, but problematic."

    I think the intention of such legislation is to deter private landlords from operating in the first place! (Because, as so many of the posts on this thread are vividly illustrating, it become punitively expensive to regain vacant possession.) This deterrence is also visible in the removal of claiming mortgage interest against tax, the higher SDLT etc etc.

    It's clear the government don't want BTL to exist at all, because they want house prices to lower (by reducing competition between owner-buyers and BTL buyers) so more people can afford to buy them.

    Yet at the same time, with the kind of blind/hypocritical logic of governments, the state continues to rely on the private sector to substitute for council housing.

    So when eviction becomes 'impossible' (or, at least, even more punitively costly), and profit margins/yields are reduced to zilch for private BTL landlords, and all the LL quit the field, who, then, is going to house the benefits claimants? Is the government going to buy all the former private BTl properties from the quitting private landlords, and turn them back into state owned (hey, council!) housing? Or will the houses be bought by all the first time buyers that are 'locked out' of the market? And then what happens to the DSS wannabe tenants??

    Basically, by 'overprotecting' tenants from eviction, the government simply wants to 'dump' the problem of the UK's chronic inability to house its own population on the private LL.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X