Monday, 01 September 2014

F451's posts

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 2:43 pm

    I'm sure some posters will revel in seeing middle class families in line at the soup kitchens and having downsized into shared rooms as a result of the cuts in public sector jobs and he failure of the private sector to grow.

    I'm sure that they will equally be pleased that the old poor and new poor are being treated with equal indiffference under the American system, but will reassure themselves that workfare will be better in Britain, its simply the Americans have not implemented it successfully.

    I'm equally convinced that those same posters will completely fail  to realise that within months their lives too could be turned upside down exactly the same way as some of those professionals interviewed on the programme. They too could not have expected the axe to fall on them, and realised to late that the cuts in welfare they supported now meant that they could not eat or heat their homes.

    It would probably be best if these people spent the evening reading the Daily Mail or looking up Conservative Home website rather than have their delusions challenged by the reality of that they support.

  • Posted in: Housing Benefit cap

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 10:27 am

    Working families will face reductions in the LHA and incresing rents. They may also fall foul of the extra room tax, and if under 35 the significant reduction in benefit for that age group.

    Working families who do not have full time work (and lets face it the bulk of jobs growth under the last years of Labour has been carried on under the Tories - low wage short hour retail and fast food outlet jobs) face massive losses under the benefit cuts for tax credits on top of the verious tenant related cuts and additional charges.

    Families on full benefit will be losing through the cap, but working families look set to lose even greater proportions of thier income - unless of course they are fortunate to have secure employment and an above average wage.

    As for the last point mrkfm, you are absolutely correct, but the government refuse to restrict those rents, nor provide affordable social housing as an alternative. Where people unable to afford the Tory rents are meant to live I'm not sure, but the lie from Shapps that forcing out those on benefit is because it is unfair to working people who can not afford to live there as the motivation is exposed by the fact that working people are on benefit, and even the average waged can not afford the city rents.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 3:43 pm

    How does equal taxation and the freedom to earn your worth prevent you from acquiring possesions or bettering yourself Nonny?

    I make no such demands (neither am I calling you anti tenant). Are we reading the same posts?

  • Posted in: Information on damp

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 3:02 pm

    "The proportion of dwellings with damp problems reduced from 13 per cent in 1996 to 7 per cent in 2010. Private rented dwellings were more likely than those in other tenures to experience damp problems"

    You could try the English Housing Survey, CLG Website, of which this is an extract - but in honesty, there is not going to be a single source for the detail that you seek Ms Venter.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 10:57 am

    Nonny 10-2-12 9:10am

    Why not when it can be such fun!

    I do not advocate benefit increases. Indeed I advocate the scrapping of every single benefit, including the many that you get, scrapping all tax allowances and all tax bandings. I advocate the replacement with a flat rate tax on all income and a flat rate premium paid to all citizens. What people earn on top of their premium is up to them, but they will pay the flat rate tax on every pound of it the same as the next person.

    What I also advocate is that the wage paid for the job should reflect the value of the work done. It is ridiculous that a senior executive may lead an organisation to no advancement yet gain maximum reward at the same time as a front-line worker may achieve and exceed all of their targets, generate significant earning yet only receive a portion of that they have generated. Each should receive in proportion to the worth that they add.

    The real flaw in your proposition Nonny is that the greater proportion of those dependent on benefit are earning, are working, yet remain poor. It is not a case of the squeezed middle funding the poor but a case of the poor and the middle funding the rich in ever higher proportions. That is why proportionate shares of wealth has decreased for the bottom 20% and increased for the top 10%.

    A restoration of fairness in pay and taxation would allow the long put off revolution in work that ICT can permit, as well as re-empower the majority who have seen their powers eroded for decades.

    You may argue to kep things as they are Nonny - but is that really what you want.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 09/02/2012 7:04 pm

    Yes nonny - clothing is not essential either - indeed without clothing who needs wardrobes. The savings are endless.

    The Tories are right, all anyone needs is sufficient food upon which to do a days' labour and somewhere to sleep for the 4 hours when not working. A fiver a day is more than enough, if we convert some old commercial units in to dorms and feeding centres for the poor. Then, all the houses that are freed up can be afforded by the middle earners, who will not have to suffer living next door to the poor. Tory Utopia, and only a couple of years away.

  • Posted in: RSL`s and Government Incentives

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 9:16 pm

    Have a look at the related story threads on this site and you will pick up a number of views and arguments.

  • Posted in: Ending an 'Affordable' Tenancy

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 4:41 pm

    I noticed - hence the thread.

    This will arise as an issue only when the sheep realise the true cost of ending security for millions of families, removing affordability as a permenant step, and playing to the needs of the buy-to-let investor over and above any national interest, and definately against the interest of the poor British Taxpayer.

    I remember Tories on the doorstep in the 90's, complaining that the Councils did not provide enough houses anymore, so there was no where for their children to live - well you dumb sheep, that's what you created when you applauded Right to Buy in the 1980's I'd reply (only thinking the dumb sheep part - but honestly it was so tiresome talking to the very people who had voted for the calamity who now had the cheek to complain because it was effecting them.)

    It is equally tiresome talking to the sheep today who are applauding the latest great Tory Take Away, as I'm sure they will come bleeting back when they realise the policies effect them too!

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 3:21 pm

    Here here mrkfm

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 11:34 am

    Am I right in concluding that the string of nonny contributers are tenants of the landlord exercising their right to reply?

    If so - perhaps the nonnies would be up for sharing the reason the rent was not paid would be helpful to the rest of us on the forum to judge the rights and wrongs in the case.

    That said - are posts detailing the processes of a court case legal?

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

About My Posts

Here you can see your forum posts, see who has replied and add to the comments.

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

IH Subscription