£26,000 Benefit Cap

[fred quimby]

I have moved five times... Its not the end of the world...

[kaosmark2]

I would say that's about 65% accurate

[kaosmark2]

Friends mean nothing or little to me... They are someone to share a pint with or pass ideal gossip with...

I probably have three or four friends who I would put any real value on... Who I know would be there for me regardless of what shit goes on. The rest would fuck me over in a heartbeat.

Family aren't much better to be frank....

[lost]

not wishing to sound like a bitter old man but people may find when they are older their relationships with friends change. That best mate you've been going drinking with every week may meet someone, have kids and his wife decide they are better socializing with the nice couple they met down prenatal classes. If you knock back education or job opportunities to stay with friends you might find they move on without you and you'll be that weird old bloke proping up the bar on your own

[russycarps]

barry I am 97.8% certain your wife is having an affair.

[kaosmark2]

not wishing to sound like a bitter old man but people may find when they are older their relationships with friends change. That best mate you've been going drinking with every week may meet someone, have kids and his wife decide they are better socializing with the nice couple they met down prenatal classes. If you knock back education or job opportunities to stay with friends you might find they move on without you and you'll be that weird old bloke proping up the bar on your own

[kaosmark2]

Just to clarify I don't fuck "friends" over... Its the other way around... I have been fucked over so often its destroyed my concept in trusting "friends" too much...

Lost out big time after organising things like gig tickets and trips to places like the national, stag nights etc... Deep down everyone seems to have a element of self serving in them. Everyones a c**t, specially when it comes to money...

I just see "friends" at work, on my street etc etc as people to exchange smiles, waves, ideal conversation and few pints over a BBQ and not much more or less...

[russycarps]

I'd say having around 4 very close friends who you trust deeply is a normal amount for a 30-40 something person

[gary1979666]

Back to the main discussion. Isn't it the case that regardless of your income stream (salary / benefits), that if that stream ebbs in some way or costs increase, then you have to cut your cloth accordingly.

If I was to lose my job, say, and the only one I could get was a 20% cut in income, I'd see if I could afford my current place and if not, look for alternatives that were cheaper. Friends / family wouldn't factor too heavily in the decision making process, as making ends meet would be the priority. I couldn't turn around to the mortgage company and say "I can't afford this mortgage, but you can't turf me out, cos it's not fair." It's life and you do what you need to to get by.

I saw a comment earlier about families on housing benefit having a right to have a separate bedroom per child. To me that sound like a luxory - why should a family with 3 kids be entitled to a 4 bed house if they claim benefit. One of my friends has 2 of his 3 sharing a room because they can only afford a 3 bed house with both of them working. Should they get a subsidy to afford a bigger place?!

[lost]

if you got dropped as friend, then it probably wasn't much of a friendship in the first place.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

.

I saw a comment earlier about families on housing benefit having a right to have a separate bedroom per child. To me that sound like a luxory - why should a family with 3 kids be entitled to a 4 bed house if they claim benefit. One of my friends has 2 of his 3 sharing a room because they can only afford a 3 bed house with both of them working. Should they get a subsidy to afford a bigger place?!

[Ed209]

Only just read the last few pages of this thread. A few points that come to mind

1. Barry is a tit

2. The reason somewhere like London 'works' (multiculturalism, socially accepting and tollerant, low crime rate for a city its size) is because it has people from all different social backgrounds live in the same neighbourhoods. You have multimillion pound houses next to social housing and estates. And it works absolutely brilliantly. Destroying that would mean segregating and carving up one of/if not the most socially and racially tollerant cities in the world. Which is utterly tragic. London is a model of how 21st century cities can work. The tories are going to destroy that and turn it into a Paris or American city where huge divides exist. This leads to higher crime and social unrest which the tax payer is only going to have to pick up anyway. And jeez, you know its right wing when even Boris Johnson thinks its going too far. But these are well troden arguments which anyone with half a brain understands.

And 3. Barry is a tit

[feral chile]

No... I am not saying that at all... I would be gutted if I had to move from where I live... I would care...

In the end I would have to do what the numbers say I have to do... and start again....

[russycarps]

Only just read the last few pages of this thread. A few points that come to mind

1. Barry is a tit

2. The reason somewhere like London 'works' (multiculturalism, socially accepting and tollerant, low crime rate for a city its size) is because it has people from all different social backgrounds live in the same neighbourhoods. You have multimillion pound houses next to social housing and estates. And it works absolutely brilliantly. Destroying that would mean segregating and carving up one of/if not the most socially and racially tollerant cities in the world. Which is utterly tragic. London is a model of how 21st century cities can work. The tories are going to destroy that and turn it into a Paris or American city where huge divides exist. This leads to higher crime and social unrest which the tax payer is only going to have to pick up anyway. And jeez, you know its right wing when even Boris Johnson thinks its going too far. But these are well troden arguments which anyone with half a brain understands.

And 3. Barry is a tit

[Rufus Gwertigan]

was it my comment?

[gary1979666]

Even so, it would be your choice, you'd feel in control to an extent, hopefully.

I know just because you own your own home doesn't mean you can't be forced into having to move to somewhere totally unsuitable, but at least you might have the illusion of still being in control of your own life.

The horrible thing about being on benefits is when that's taken away from you.

[eFestivals]

But they aren't saying with the benefits that they HAVE to move to Stoke or whereever - the person involved would actually have a say in it too.

The person HAS TO move. If the only offer of alternative accommodation is Stoke or wherever, then guess where they're moving?

[feral chile]

But they aren't saying with the benefits that they HAVE to move to Stoke or whereever - the person involved would actually have a say in it too.

Owning the house has little say, as if you can't afford the payments for the debt on it, then you need to sell and move somewhere you can afford.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

in response to gary saying:

you said the comment was total balls. I assumed it was my comment saying:

there's every possibility I've got my facts wrong, so I just wondered if it was that comment that was balls, and where I got it wrong

[LondonTom]

But they aren't saying with the benefits that they HAVE to move to Stoke or whereever - the person involved would actually have a say in it too.

Owning the house has little say, as if you can't afford the payments for the debt on it, then you need to sell and move somewhere you can afford.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

errr..... ok

I'll disregard the 'total balls' comment then...

[gary1979666]

I understand what you mean. But there's a psychological difference between you finding a new home, even if you've had to choose with a vastly reduced budget, and with you being told to take a specific house that's been allocated to you, or make yourself homeless.

Even though your budget constricts your choices, if you see a house that's totally unsuitable, you're still able to reject it. So you don't have the same sense of powerlessness in most cases.

(Though having been a home owner on benefits, trapped in a mouldy old house with a failed damp course and regular breakins, I'm all too well aware that there are exceptions).

[gary1979666]

Your not likely to downsize to stoke if you own your own house in London are you? You'd more than likely move slightly further away from the tube and have to walk an extra 20 minutes.

Then again this stoke thing was Newham council apparently, and I can't imagine its much worse than round here

[feral chile]

I'm not familiar with the detail - I thought that the claimant could look for somewhere and as long as it was priced within their benefit, then that was that. I imagine the council would have more contacts to enable this, but wouldn't rule out the claimant doing the househunting too.

That's why I drew the comparisons - thought both cases have a budget, if either can't find a house within the budget in the area they want, then they look elsewhere. Also why I defended the councils a bit, as they can't do a Kirstie and Phil and have multiple options for families. If I'm wrong then those opinions don't hold.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

isn't there a penalty if you don't accept the one and only offer the coucil offers, like deduction of benefits?