This Cannot Be Right

[emmie]

people who are on benefits being refused housing, this was according to the BBC News. see if i can find the story for a better overview.

[Mamyalynne]

I'm sure many of those on low pay would rather not live there, but if they have a job it makes sense to be near it.

Perhaps they should move somewhere quieter, of course there may be no work available.

[bednobs]

older people who have retired could be moved out if they are not going to be working

[emmie]

it just smacks of social cleansing, or that is how it reads

[emmie]

bedknobs, if they have family around them, or living with them would you say the same. why should someone who has retired be shunted anywhere.

[bednobs]

well its happening anyway by the sounds of it if landlords wont take on benefit receivers

[bednobs]

err because they are renting: by its very nature, its temporary! And the landlord can ask for the property back with very little notice.

[Mamyalynne]

Some may consider their home temporary , many don't - I have lived in my privately rented home for 41 years.

[bednobs]

i suppose its a similar issue to the room subsidy thing (bedroom tax) why should people occupy social housing that's too big for their needs - why should people occupy xocial housing that's in the wrong location for their needs? Of course, i thnk you story is probably about private renting though, just socially subsidised

[bednobs]

just because you dont consider it temporary, doesnt mean it isnt. If your landlord wanted it back, they'd only have to give you probably 2 months notice. Of course, all housing is temporary really!

[emmie]

as been pointed out most people who get h/b are in work. you can't just shunt them out because it fits in with some grand plan to exclude benefit claimants.

[emmie]

mamy, same here.

[Mamyalynne]

Mine is 100% private.


Maybe Pensioner Farms? Families could go at weekends?


Sounds hideous.

[bednobs]

you say "you cant" but according to you, you clearly can.

[New Judge]

Keeping the debate specifically to those receiving considerable help with their housing costs from the taxpayer, it must be surely right that, with limited housing stock (which will be the case for the foreseeable future) some form of rationing must be imposed.

Every case needs assessing on its merits (hence it is pointless saying “what about x and what about y?”). But in principle it makes no sense to say on the one hand that we cannot recruit workers to essential jobs in areas of expensive housing because they cannot afford to live there whilst on the other paying heavy subsidies to people who do not need to live in those areas to do so simply because they want to. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[emmie]

not me, but the piece says they can.

[Mamyalynne]

Every case is judged on its merits, one person/family may get a top up of £5 per week HB , another may get £50 and some get it all paid.

As I say if all the low paid moved to cheaper areas with no work, what would happen then?

I'm not fighting for the right to live in London, wouldn't move there for a gold clock.

[New Judge]

"As I say if all the low paid moved to cheaper areas with no work..."

Which of course, mamy, is the exact opposite of what I am suggesting.

[emmie]

perhaps they should do something about all the empty properties around and not just in London.

[poorclare]

Wacker get a life, when I worked in the city I would not have like to lived there ~ no way

[emmie]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/04/london-mayor-scandal-empty-homes