The final push is starting... get rid of those pesky poor people

[grumpyhack]

I must be a net beneficiary having had three lots of major surgery. It wasn't required as a result of lifestyle, shit sometimes just happens. But I was very grateful and owe my life to the NHS.

It's a far from flawed system but is probably as good as we're likely to get.

[Guest]

I must be a net beneficiary having had three lots of major surgery. It wasn't required as a result of lifestyle, shit sometimes just happens. But I was very grateful and owe my life to the NHS.

It's a far from flawed system but is probably as good as we're likely to get.

[Guest]

I have respect for them...

[Guest]

How do you link up respect with how much money you think the benefit system should push out? Strange concept

[Guest]

No fault of their own? Is anyone ever to blames for anything in your world other than government and of course the rich?

Mass generalisation to say none of them found their way to benefits without personal blame surely?

How about the person who got sacked for being a bully?

[Guest]

I don't want to get into it, just pointing out the mad generislations you push... Saying they aren't to blame when no doubt some are...

Edited February 17, 2013 by tonyblair

[Guest]

I actually said something totally different. I said it was a personal disaster for the people.

Edited February 17, 2013 by tonyblair

[Kyelo]

The people who live in these expensive places should be able to live there until they choose to leave or die. The contracts shouldn't be passed on to relatives unless they are able to afford the going rate for that area. This would mean it could be your family home but your children would have years to plan ahead and know they would have to go it alone at some point.

Rents are not going to go down anytime soon, if anything they will go up and the tax payer shouldn't have to foot the bill for others. Benefits are there to help those in need, not to pay for your entire life.

As to the whole "areas of rich and poor", well that's been the case for thousands of years. Just the way it is. I was brought up to live within my means, I aspire to move up the property ladder, further myself but I know some things are out of my reach and always will be...not counting a random lottery win etc

[abdoujaparov]

There you go tony... I said it, not quite like I said... But I made that point... I don't doubt it's a nightmare for the people moving,,, but its no more or less of a nightmare than people having to move for reasons of losing a job / being made redundant. It's just a fact of life. Deal with it and stop moaning. You act like we all owe you an existence.

[eFestivals]

I don't doubt it's a nightmare for the people moving,,, but its no more or less of a nightmare than people having to move for reasons of losing a job / being made redundant.

one gets the choice of when and where they move to, and are able to see the benefits they'll get from such a move.

The other is being moved just because people like you say they should be moved, and which they have no choice over. There are no personal benefits from the move, there's only the tax payments of people like you who benefit.

Yeah, it's the same thing.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

£1500 a month for a two bedroom flat and you think the tax payer should fund that You are on cloud cuckoo land....

[eFestivals]

£1500 a month for a two bedroom flat and you think the tax payer should fund that You are on cloud cuckoo land....

the price is relative to everything else in that area, no different to how your own wages put you in the top ten %.

You're not doing work that's worth the top 10% of pay - as you know yourself by you having ducked that earlier question of mine, but you're exceedingly happy to take advantage of it all the same. AND you are able to make a choice over that.

The only difference with the rent someone in London might pay is that they don't have that choice. They are being forced to pay that or be homeless (while someone with a "doesn't care" attitude just like you scoops up that pile of cash).

If your wages are "the market" deciding then the same should apply with housing.

But you, Barry, want it all ways to your advantage - you want low taxes because the 'market' of voters can give you that, you want your high wages because the market of software developers can give you that, but you say that people can't accept the market rents because that means you can't have even lower taxes.

But you live in your wonderful bubble where you believe yourself caring and loving and holding Christian values while you take everything for yourself and shit on anyone who's lifes circumstances have dealt a worst hand than you.

Oh how I wish I was Barry.

Edited February 18, 2013 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

I suggest that you stick to reading the Beano then

[eFestivals]

The rest was just your usual waffle but isn't the whole crux of this is there is a choice. Don't live in one of the most expensive cites in the world if you can't afford it ?

but the vast majority of people who will be affected by this could afford to live there (and had perhaps done so for all of their lives). It's their changed circumstances - thru no choice of their own - which has made it unaffordable for them.

Now, if you lose your job do you get thrown out of your home by default? No you don't.

So why do you expect of others what doesn't happen to you?

You have astounding double standards. Better known as gree3d. Everything for you (whether you deserve it or not) and nothing for anyone else (with no regard for whether they deserve it or not).

But you don't support the nasty party as you keep saying. Which comes to mean that you're just nasty by default.

I couldn't afford to live in London so its a none start for me

if the top 10% earners like you can't afford it, you have to wonder how come it's populated at all. Edited February 18, 2013 by eFestivals

[Guest]

Yup... and the victim of it is the tax payer and the public....

[Guest]

Is the real issue not the over inflated cost of housing and the greed of landlords?

[lost]

couple of new lib dem policies announced over the weekend may help. Mansion tax to include property portfolios worth over £2m and increasing the period in which gifts aren't liable for inheritance tax from 7 to 15 years

[eFestivals]

Is the real issue not the over inflated cost of housing and the greed of landlords?

Nope, not if "the market" is to decide everything. If you vote for "the market" then that's what you get.

And Barry Fish very definitely votes for "the market", so that he can post with glee about how he's in the top 10% of earners, and express his own greed. He even thinks scamming a grannie classes as good business practice.

But when a landlord does absolutely nothing different to Barry by cashing in on every opportunity that is available to him, that's wrong in Barry's mind.

Which of course gets to expose that what is really wrong is Barry's mind.

Once Barry i9s able to put forward a consistent view rather than one view which should apply to himself but another for everyone else, only then will he be able to utter a modicum of sense.

Until that time it's exceedingly clear that the only thing consistent in his own mind is his own greed.

[kaosmark2]

But when a landlord does absolutely nothing different to Barry by cashing in on every opportunity that is available to him, that's wrong in Barry's mind.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

Again isn't a lot of the problem that 'the market' is being kept artificially high?

[eFestivals]

Actually, he's not blaming the landlords, he's saying that the taxpayer shouldn't be funding them getting richer, which is correct.

it's only 'correct' is all thinking stops at that point and there's no adverse effects.

We have a market system at the bequest of the taxpayer. For the taxpayer to then say that when they don't like it there shouldn't be a market system as long as nothing of that "don't like" has an effect back on them, it's gross stupidity.

The landlords are enjoying no restraint on their trade to earn big profits just the same as Barry is with software development. Spot the difference? I can't.

If it's fine for the govt to drive down rents via a limit to what they'll pay then why are they not doing the same with software development (and everything else they buy) too?

They could save the taxpayer a whole lot more than the not-a-lot they'll save on housing benefits. If it's the duty of the govt to work against the market system for taxpayers benefit then that should surely apply in all direct5ions and not just with houses for the poor.

This is nothing to do with saving taxpayers money. It's about beating the poor, and getting the poor* to beat to the poor with bullshit statements to create a divide and rule scenario.

And the 'poor' in this instance includes the likes of Barry Fish. He's no less victimising himself as he is those poor.

[eFestivals]

Again isn't a lot of the problem that 'the market' is being kept artificially high?

not by housing benefits, no it isn't.

But if you wish to go down that route, then a far better place to start is at home, where HMRC's own rent for their own offices does nothing different - but (proportionally) rewards their own landlords far more than any landlord cashing in via housing benefit.

Meanwhile, govt contracts for just about anything are typically 50% or greater above the market rate. It's the govt paying 50% over the top which allows Barry to make his earnings boasts.

Why isn't Barry more concerned with that far bigger problem? It's of course got nothing to do with him cashing in no different to any landlord, oh no.

If the system is wrong then the system is wrong in all of its effects and not just some.

Edited February 18, 2013 by eFestivals

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Actually, he's not blaming the landlords, he's saying that the taxpayer shouldn't be funding them getting richer, which is correct.

[Guest]

Well to be frank this system is not going to stop tax money going to landlords. All thus means is that landlords won't take families and just stick with individuals or small families/couples. Landlords always adjust to the benefits system and they will get their cash irrespective

[Rufus Gwertigan]

if anything, it might give them a chance to put the rents up