Council tenants to be checked out financially

[discodown]

Nonsense. What has caused the debt is the banker's greed, illegal and immoral wars and a hugely wasteful, bloated European Union.

It isn't often I agree with you but I can't find a single part of this post that is wrong

[INTERVIEWER]

The unemployed, sick people on incapacity benefit, social housing tenants - all targets of a government that picks on the weak and vulnerable (we are all in it together). We have seen a recent example of just how strong Cameron really is when he informed us that he was going to freeze our EU budget contribution - and ended up costing us another £450 million every year.

[rubydazzler]

Wouldn't make more sense to just increase the rent as they become finanacially more secure? I really don't think it's fair to throw someone out of their home because they improve their situation. But they shouldn't be being subsidised when they no longer need the help, obviously.

 

Although I don't agree with people taking up bigger houses than they need, I can also see that the community you live in is important and becomes even more so as you age.

 

I seem to remember that under Labour, the plan was to equalise the rents under private, social and council housing eventually anyway. I think they were under the mistaken impression that it didn't matter what the rents were because most people were claiming benefits. Goes to show how out of touch they'd become with their grassroots.

 

It's all had a knock on effect on forcing up rents and house prices generally, as well.

[INTERVIEWER]

I seem to remember that under Labour, the plan was to equalise the rents under private, social and council housing eventually anyway. I think they were under the mistaken impression that it didn't matter what the rents were because most people were claiming benefits. Goes to show how out of touch they'd become with their grassroots.

 

If this proposal actually goes ahead, it will penalise people on low incomes for attempting to better themselves. Why try to secure decent, better paid employment if it means losing your home?

 

Are the ConDems trying to ensure that the low paid remain in minimum wage level jobs? Because evicting people once they have reached a certain level of income is a deterrent to improving one's situation.

[INTERVIEWER]

If the income level is set at £300 per week, how many people would rather face a life on unemployment benefit or minimum wage income than a life on the streets?

 

More evictions, more homelessness, more unemployment, more profit for private sector landlords - all brought to you by the ConDems!

 

Cameron and Clegg - punishing the working poor who have aspirations to improve themselves by taking away the roof over their head...

 

Disgusting.

[INTERVIEWER]

Although I don't agree with people taking up bigger houses than they need, I can also see that the community you live in is important and becomes even more so as you age.

 

According to Cameron and Clegg, there is no such thing as 'community' - only the 'Big Society' where most people work for free.

[Guest]

I thought the governments main aim was to reduce the amount paid out in benefits of one kind or another.

 

The result of this policy will be to throw out council / social housing tenants who are now paying full rent and council tax, and replace them them with poorer people who need both housing and council tax benefits.

End result - EVERY ONE in social housing will be on benefits - with the down grading of whole areas to ghettos.

 

It seems a strange way of cutting benefits.

[natjack]

The result of this policy will be to throw out council/social housing tenants who are now paying full rent and council tax, and replace them them with poorer people who need both housing and council tax benefits.

Isn't the whole point that council tenants aren't paying full rent, they're paying a subsidised rent.

 

Which is unfair both on people who can't get a subsidised home, on exactly the same wages, and also on people who don't have a wage, or a home and no prospect of getting one because of blocking by people who don't really need the help anymore.

[rubydazzler]

If this proposal actually goes ahead, it will penalise people on low incomes for attempting to better themselves. Why try to secure decent, better paid employment if it means losing your home?

 

Are the ConDems trying to ensure that the low paid remain in minimum wage level jobs? Because evicting people once they have reached a certain level of income is a deterrent to improving one's situation.

 

According to Cameron and Clegg, there is no such thing as 'community' - only the 'Big Society' where most people work for free.

Do you have any answers to my actual post rather than to the questions you think up in your own head?

 

Do you disagree that Labour were gradually working towards totally removing the subsidy on council houses? Or not? Try to be honest in your answer, if you can.

 

As for the big society/community, what's wrong with helping your neighbours out when they need it, elderly, young parents, youth club? You know, like we used to, in the olden days, without always asking what was in it for us?

[Rupert_Baehr]

The unemployed, sick people on incapacity benefit, social housing tenants ...

 

Unemployed - Haven't got a job. Probably need assistance from the State.

 

Sick people on incapacity benefits - Need assistance from the State.

 

Social housing tenants - are getting assistance from the state whether they need it or not. And if they don't need assistance; if they're better off than many of those on the list waiting for social housing, why do you think they should be allowed to keep their noses in the trough?