EPC and 'Benefits for Houses'.

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

    #16
    Originally posted by SouthernDave View Post

    your not the only one. I dont understand how anyone who’s doesn’t EARN their money can buy a house.
    I too am somewhat confused, i get the low paid and all that but we could have a situation where someone without a genuine taxable job is able to purchase a house paid for by a combination of the tax payer and some illegal work (we all know it happens). Stunned.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by nukecad View Post
      Many people who EARN low wages are entitled to claim Universal Credit Housing Element, (or Housing Benefit if they have been claiming for a number of years), at LHA rate.

      Despite what some of the right wing media would like have you believe there are more workers claiming benefits than non-workers.
      Universal Credit, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Housing Benefit, all are benefits claimed by workers.
      Its a sad reality. But still, i don’t think any handouts should count towards mortgage affordability. If you need the handouts, you can’t and shouldn’t be able to afford a mortgage.

      Comment


        #18
        I don't disagree, in principle.

        You should work, if you are able to, and you should get paid a decent wage for that work so that you don't have to rely on benefits and can afford to buy a property.

        (The bigger scandal which goes unaddressed is that many wages are simply not enough to live on and so low-paid workers have to claim benefits as well - in effect the taxpayer is subsidising employers.
        The very fact that they are eligible to claim benefits shows that the wages being paid are not adequate).

        However if you look at it from a purely government finance / taxpayers point of view then it starts to make more sense.

        The benefits towards rents are being paid out anyway, and currently they are ultimately ending up in landlords pockets. (assuming the rent is paid of course).
        If you take a certain point of view then you could see that as 'Fat Cat' landlords benefiting from taxpayers money; and I'm sure most taxpayers wouldn't see that as being right or fair if they thought about it.

        Paying exactly the same taxpayers money to be used towards mortgage repayments means that ultimately it is the benefit claimant who benefits and not the landlord.

        Fair enough with 'Fat Cat' mortgage lender getting the money instead of landlords, until the mortgage is paid off.
        But that's another important point - the mortgage will eventually be paid off, rent will always be ongoing.

        There is also the view that those purchasing their own property will be more likely to want to look after it, and better their jobs/wages to be able to improve it.

        In the end the taxpayers money is being paid out anyway; so it simply becomes a question of just who do you think should "benefit" from it.

        TBH though this scheme is not going to apply to the majority of benefits claimants.
        Those who will qualify will be workers, workers who are also claiming benefits because their employer is not paying them a decent living wage.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by nukecad View Post
          If you take a certain point of view then you could see that as 'Fat Cat' landlords benefiting from taxpayers money;
          Agree.
          Those of a certain point of view will always see it that way, however irrational it may be.

          Originally posted by nukecad View Post
          I'm sure most taxpayers wouldn't see that as being right or fair if they thought about it.
          Disagree.
          I doubt many taxpayers with even a mediocre IQ would come to that conclusion rationally.

          Comment


            #20
            The problem is that low end job pay packets are adequate to live on, but not the way the majority of people want to live. Life isn’t fair…we can’t subsidise everyone and push for equality of outcome. Its sets a president that it doesn’t matter what job you do and means you don’t have to work hard in life.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by SouthernDave View Post
              .............. it doesn’t matter what job you do and means you don’t have to work hard in life.
              We have been on this road for decades, ever since the school sports days banned anyone actually coming 1st............ '' everyone who takes part gets a medal '', we are all winners !!

              There will always be those who either made bad decisions in the past or (normally), no decision at all, saying they want what the rest of us who did well have, but we made smart decisions and took chances.... and worked hard. It's called envy, i ignore it and make decisions in the best interest of MY family.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Hudson01 View Post
                We have been on this road for decades, ever since the school sports days banned anyone actually coming 1st............ '' everyone who takes part gets a medal '', we are all winners !!
                This has been misunderstood for years now.

                There is overwhelming evidence that competition at young ages is negative for the majority of children, because it excludes the majority.
                Children develop at massively different rates, and competition can pretty much eliminate late developers entirely.

                The recommendations for soccer coaching, for example, are to focus on skills and movement and to stop competitive matches until (ideally) post puberty.
                At that point, competition becomes really meaningful and valuable.

                What you want is children to run about and be healthy and giving them positive rewards is good for that.
                Medals for everyone is much better than rewarding the couple of kids who had a growth spurt before anyone else and can run, lift, kick and throw better than their six year old classmates because of luck and genetics.
                And meanwhile lots of people who finish outside the medals gives up any sporting ambition that they had.

                There's a time to be competitive and it's not while you're a child.
                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


                  #23
                  jpkeates,
                  Can the Parents' Race still be competitive - I'm a demon with an egg & spoon

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X