Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

I'm not sure about cutting them entirely, but to me it makes sense that child support should lessen for every child the more children you get. Sure, they all need the same amount of food and hygiene costs, but a lot of other stuff like clothes and equipment can be handed down as it is outgrown.

I dont want to retire but I dont want to have 10 children either. What do?

Become an art gallerist.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

What evidence do you have that child benefits are going on expensive tvs et al? That the people who are doing this - and not people who actually need the benefit to feed their children - are then complaining benefits don't cover the costs they're meant for?

A fuck tonne of personal anecdotal evidence. I'm from a very lower working class background from one of the poorest cities in the UK so don't give me this junk. Unless you're claiming there's no way they spend it on luxuries?

And that's ignoring the fact I've worked in retail before and had copious amounts of people come to me with HEALTHY START vouchers and spend them on alcohol, cigs and everything else under the sun. (Something I refused until I got told to let them spend them or get fired.)

That housing benefit is being kept and not sent to the landlord? And then, of course, that the landlord is not then evicting said people.

Housing benefit getting paid to tenants:

How you’re paid
Housing Benefit is paid by your council as follows:

council tenants - into your rent account (you won’t receive the money)
private tenants - into your bank or building society account (rarely by cheque)

How long it takes to evict a tenant:

Section 8: mandatory grounds
If your landlord proves a mandatory ground, the court must order you to leave, usually in 14 days.

Ground 8 is the most commonly used mandatory ground. It's used if you have rent arrears of at least:

2 months if you pay rent monthly
8 weeks if you pay rent weekly

(This doesn't include having to move to the county court to get the eviction order or moving to the high court to get a high court bailiff to actually evict the person if they refuse to leave. So we're talking 2+ months for the most basic cases, even ignoring the fact that you can't be evicted before you've lived in a property for six months.)

Oh, and three in four benefits tenants are now in arrears which isn't possible unless they aren't giving their rent to the landlord:

Social housing representative bodies are calling on the government to review Universal Credit as new research finds more than three-quarters of tenants are in rent arrears.

Then that people with lots of kids don't work.

Closest I can find:

In 2015, 10,500 families in London were affected by the overall benefit cap, almost as many as in the rest of England put together. This includes 2,400 families losing more than £100 a week; 6,500 affected families had at least three children. When the cap is lowered to £23,000 those already affected will lose a further £58 a week and an additional 20,000 households in London will be capped.

Almost 65% of families in London affected by a benefits cap in the past (NOT the two child cap) have more than three kids.

And that families that do work don't claim benefits.

Irrelevant, trying to make a false comparison.

I highly recommend giving up now.

[scriver]

The main suspect of the deed in Stockholm has plead guilty today.

[Jopax]

There's apparently been an explosion in Dortmund? Borussias bus seems to have been there/the target. I have no idea what exactly is going on since I just heard my parents mentioned. Any of the German folk have more info on it?

Edit: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/39572434

Three explosions apparently? Since it's in the sports section I'm guessing it's probably some fanboys fanboying a bit too hard with big ass firecrackers or something.

[ChairmanPoo]

A spanish soccer player was hurt so, no, not a joke

[Jopax]

There's such a thing as taking a joke too far or it going wrong. Since they postponed the match to tommorrow I don't think they're considering it a huge threat, otherwise there'd probably be a cancellation or migration of it to somewhere they'd consider less dangerous.

[smjjames]

Politico EU has an article for it, but it has pretty much identical info to BBC one.

[hector13]

What evidence do you have that child benefits are going on expensive tvs et al? That the people who are doing this - and not people who actually need the benefit to feed their children - are then complaining benefits don't cover the costs they're meant for?

A fuck tonne of personal anecdotal evidence. I'm from a very lower working class background from one of the poorest cities in the UK so don't give me this junk. Unless you're claiming there's no way they spend it on luxuries?

I made no such claim. You made the claim that the benefits received go on these luxuries.

In my very personal experience, the child benefits my mum received were not spent on luxuries. Whose personal experience is more right? This is why I asked for citations. There's less emotional attachment to it, it's more evidence-based so that things can be refuted or argued, and it can be discussed without either of us going "well your experience is fucking wrong, mate"

And that's ignoring the fact I've worked in retail before and had copious amounts of people come to me with HEALTHY START vouchers and spend them on alcohol, cigs and everything else under the sun. (Something I refused until I got told to let them spend them or get fired.)

I also worked in retail and was told specifically not to accept healthy start vouchers unless they were for the things they were meant for. I was working for one of the big four, though.

That housing benefit is being kept and not sent to the landlord? And then, of course, that the landlord is not then evicting said people.

Housing benefit getting paid to tenants:

How you’re paid
Housing Benefit is paid by your council as follows:

council tenants - into your rent account (you won’t receive the money)
private tenants - into your bank or building society account (rarely by cheque)

That's how the benefit is paid. This provides no evidence for landlords not receiving rent, which seems it would only ever affect a private landlord.

Some government research (the link to the full report is at the bottom, it's a pdf) from last year says that the proportion of private landlords unwilling to rent to housing benefit recipients is quite large. About the only time they are willing to rent to them is when they don't have a choice.

Note in section 2.1 that housing benefit will be paid directly to a private landlord when the tenant is in arrears for 8 weeks, are unlikely to pay their rent, or if they are unable to manage their own finances.

Part of the research found that private landlords were evicting people purely on the basis that they were receiving housing benefits, as the changes the Tory government were enacting (the four year freeze on the Local Housing Allowance being a big one for that) made them uncertain about future income streams.

How long it takes to evict a tenant:

Section 8: mandatory grounds
If your landlord proves a mandatory ground, the court must order you to leave, usually in 14 days.

Ground 8 is the most commonly used mandatory ground. It's used if you have rent arrears of at least:

2 months if you pay rent monthly
8 weeks if you pay rent weekly

(This doesn't include having to move to the county court to get the eviction order or moving to the high court to get a high court bailiff to actually evict the person if they refuse to leave. So we're talking 2+ months for the most basic cases, even ignoring the fact that you can't be evicted before you've lived in a property for six months.)

My point was that a troublesome tenant can be evicted. It takes a long-ass time, yes, I will accept that, but they can still be punted.

Here's a guide to the process a letting agency will go through prior to letting a property.

To be fair, I'm only really interested in the first bit: references. Basically, you're going to be asked to show that you're going to be able to pay your rent. Asking a previous landlord if there were issues, doing a credit check, asking for bank details, and then employment details to make sure you have an income.

If any issues arise with these checks, they will ask for a guarantor. This is a person who will be legally responsible for paying your rent if you don't.

Essentially, a private landlord who gets into a situation in which someone won't (and I would like very much to stress that this is separate from someone who can't) pay rent is probably an idiot. Even if they are an idiot, they can still evict someone from their property, and rent it to someone else, hopefully having learned something from the experience.

[personal aside] Presumably advertising in a "no Irish allowed" manner and saying they don't want benefits recipients, because that's not discriminatory, apparently. [/personal aside]

Oh, and three in four benefits tenants are now in arrears which isn't possible unless they aren't giving their rent to the landlord:

Social housing representative bodies are calling on the government to review Universal Credit as new research finds more than three-quarters of tenants are in rent arrears.

That's a headline and a sub-headline, unless I register for the article.

According to these guys who source the article, these people are in arrears mostly because of the way the Universal Credit is paid:

All respondents said the six-week period before a tenant receives their first UC payment is “very frequently or frequently a factor in claimants falling into arrears”.

The guys who did the report also think that these people don't have enough savings (including from their last pay cheque) to cover the cost during that time.

Basically, these people are in arrears because they can't pay, not because they won't.

Further, they also note that demand for money advice services, food banks, and hardship funds has increased in the areas they were surveying, as well as the surveyed saying that these tenants are using loan sharks pay day loan services to fund the shortfall.

In other words, they're putting themselves in greater financial difficulty in order to pay the bills that they can't otherwise pay.

Then that people with lots of kids don't work.

Closest I can find:

In 2015, 10,500 families in London were affected by the overall benefit cap, almost as many as in the rest of England put together. This includes 2,400 families losing more than £100 a week; 6,500 affected families had at least three children. When the cap is lowered to £23,000 those already affected will lose a further £58 a week and an additional 20,000 households in London will be capped.

Almost 65% of families in London affected by a benefits cap in the past (NOT the two child cap) have more than three kids.

That doesn't say whether or not the affected families were working, though.

Spoiler: another personal aside (click to show/hide)

Further welfare changes were announced in the 2015 Summer Budget. Some (such as limiting child tax credits to the first two children) will only apply to new claimants. But other cuts will make individual families materially worse off than they are now. In particular:

• freezing the value of benefits for four years (except certain disability and pensioner
  benefits);
• lowering the overall benefit cap to £23,000 per year in London;
• lowering tax credits for households whose gross earnings exceed £3,850 a year.

Like... wow.

Anyway, Google found this:

Office of National Statistics on working/workless families between October and December 2016.

I linked it to the part I found most interesting:

The number of children living in workless households decreased by 145,000 or 1.3 percentage points compared with the previous year to 1.3 million or 10.7% of all children, the lowest level since comparable records began. The percentage of children living in working households was at a record high of 58.3%, an increase of 2.0 percentage points over the past year.

Obviously this doesn't say whether or not these folks are receiving benefits, but there are more children in working families now (or at least a few months ago) than has ever been recorded.

And that families that do work don't claim benefits.

Irrelevant, trying to make a false comparison.

The second problem is that the people who have over about 4 children probably don't work and will never work. This will not harm them at all, it will only harm families who actually do work and therefore don't claim benefits.

You made the comparison.

I highly recommend giving up now.

Why are you so certain that your position is correct and that mine is not? I am genuinely curious to know the answer to this, even if you ignore the rest of the post.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

In my very personal experience, the child benefits my mum received were not spent on luxuries. Whose personal experience is more right? This is why I asked for citations. There's less emotional attachment to it, it's more evidence-based so that things can be refuted or argued, and it can be discussed without either of us going "well your experience is fucking wrong, mate"

So you didn't have a TV or anything else? You never went out for food? You never had anything that could be considered a luxury? No toys or anything else?

I also worked in retail and was told specifically not to accept healthy start vouchers unless they were for the things they were meant for. I was working for one of the big four, though.

If you were told not to accept them, then the people who have them must've tried to spend them on the things they weren't meant for. Therefore, using a welfare state benefit for something other than their kids. :^)

That's how the benefit is paid. This provides no evidence for landlords not receiving rent, which seems it would only ever affect a private landlord.

Again, evidence further down, was just showing that people receive the rent money, instead of landlords receiving it directly.

Some government research (the link to the full report is at the bottom, it's a pdf) from last year says that the proportion of private landlords unwilling to rent to housing benefit recipients is quite large. About the only time they are willing to rent to them is when they don't have a choice.

It's really odd that landlords don't want to rent to people who they have a high chance of never receiving rent off, isn't it?

Note in section 2.1 that housing benefit will be paid directly to a private landlord when the tenant is in arrears for 8 weeks, are unlikely to pay their rent, or if they are unable to manage their own finances.

LHA (Local Housing Allowance) =/= UC (Universal Credit). Two different things. As far as I can tell, you can only claim on LHA, not on UC.

Part of the research found that private landlords were evicting people purely on the basis that they were receiving housing benefits, as the changes the Tory government were enacting (the four year freeze on the Local Housing Allowance being a big one for that) made them uncertain about future income streams.

And what's wrong with that, exactly? If I say I'm going to give you £10 a month to live in your house, are you required to rent to me?

My point was that a troublesome tenant can be evicted. It takes a long-ass time, yes, I will accept that, but they can still be punted.

At which point the landlord is thousands out of pocket on something they're probably also paying a mortgage on (although I disagree with buy to let schemes...).

Here's a guide to the process a letting agency will go through prior to letting a property.

To be fair, I'm only really interested in the first bit: references. Basically, you're going to be asked to show that you're going to be able to pay your rent. Asking a previous landlord if there were issues, doing a credit check, asking for bank details, and then employment details to make sure you have an income.

If any issues arise with these checks, they will ask for a guarantor. This is a person who will be legally responsible for paying your rent if you don't.

Essentially, a private landlord who gets into a situation in which someone won't (and I would like very much to stress that this is separate from someone who can't) pay rent is probably an idiot. Even if they are an idiot, they can still evict someone from their property, and rent it to someone else, hopefully having learned something from the experience.

I've moved property several times and never been asked for a landlord reference. Maybe it's a southern thing.

Presumably advertising in a "no Irish allowed" manner and saying they don't want benefits recipients, because that's not discriminatory, apparently.

You're not born a benefits claimant.

That's a headline and a sub-headline, unless I register for the article.

According to these guys who source the article, these people are in arrears mostly because of the way the Universal Credit is paid:

All respondents said the six-week period before a tenant receives their first UC payment is “very frequently or frequently a factor in claimants falling into arrears”.

The guys who did the report also think that these people don't have enough savings (including from their last pay cheque) to cover the cost during that time.

Basically, these people are in arrears because they can't pay, not because they won't.

UC is back-paid so it's horseshit. You get all the rent money once you've claimed so you're able to pay it back.

Further, they also note that demand for money advice services, food banks, and hardship funds has increased in the areas they were surveying, as well as the surveyed saying that these tenants are using loan sharks pay day loan services to fund the shortfall.

In other words, they're putting themselves in greater financial difficulty in order to pay the bills that they can't otherwise pay.

Or mismanaging their cash on miscellaneous expenses.

That doesn't say whether or not the affected families were working, though.

It doesn't, but it shows the majority of high-benefits households are also high-kids. Only 10% of British households have more than three kids so it's definitely statistically significant.

Anyway, Google found this:

Office of National Statistics on working/workless families between October and December 2016.

I linked it to the part I found most interesting:

The number of children living in workless households decreased by 145,000 or 1.3 percentage points compared with the previous year to 1.3 million or 10.7% of all children, the lowest level since comparable records began. The percentage of children living in working households was at a record high of 58.3%, an increase of 2.0 percentage points over the past year.

Obviously this doesn't say whether or not these folks are receiving benefits, but there are more children in working families now (or at least a few months ago) than has ever been recorded.

Doesn't that suggest that the Conservative anti-benefits policies are working in terms of getting people into the workforce, then? :^)

You made the comparison.

Less benefits, if you prefer.

Why are you so certain that your position is correct and that mine is not? I am genuinely curious to know the answer to this, even if you ignore the rest of the post.

Because I've lived in this situation with enough of these people for long enough to know that their woes are overwhelmingly self inflicted. If you're dirt poor in modern England you've made a mess of your life and only you can fix that for yourself.

[ChairmanPoo]

You keep using anecdotal evidence and circular arguments. That... doesnt really make a good case

[Shub-Nullgurath]

You keep using anecdotal evidence and circular arguments. That... doesnt really make a good case

Yeah a bunch of links to government websites is anecdotal evidence and circular arguments.

ok

[ChairmanPoo]

Links? You ranted over and over about being raised in the streets and therefore being the one and only entitled to have an opinion on goverment  benefits and immigration. Seriously.

[hector13]

In my very personal experience, the child benefits my mum received were not spent on luxuries. Whose personal experience is more right? This is why I asked for citations. There's less emotional attachment to it, it's more evidence-based so that things can be refuted or argued, and it can be discussed without either of us going "well your experience is fucking wrong, mate"

So you didn't have a TV or anything else? You never went out for food? You never had anything that could be considered a luxury? No toys or anything else?

Like I said, "well your experience is fucking wrong, mate"

Though you must've had quite the Spartan upbringing if you think toys and a TV were a luxury.

If you must know, McDonalds was a couple of times a year treat.

I also worked in retail and was told specifically not to accept healthy start vouchers unless they were for the things they were meant for. I was working for one of the big four, though.

If you were told not to accept them, then the people who have them must've tried to spend them on the things they weren't meant for. Therefore, using a welfare state benefit for something other than their kids. :^)

Or I was being told for what the healthy start vouchers were to be used, so I knew how to ring it up on the till. It speaks well of your position that you need to resort to twisting arguments to suit it.

That's how the benefit is paid. This provides no evidence for landlords not receiving rent, which seems it would only ever affect a private landlord.

Again, evidence further down, was just showing that people receive the rent money, instead of landlords receiving it directly.

What's your point?

Some government research (the link to the full report is at the bottom, it's a pdf) from last year says that the proportion of private landlords unwilling to rent to housing benefit recipients is quite large. About the only time they are willing to rent to them is when they don't have a choice.

It's really odd that landlords don't want to rent to people who they have a high chance of never receiving rent off, isn't it?

Not really; the banks lending them money to buy their renting properties set out in the conditions for those loans that they can't rent to someone they know is on housing benefits. Banks don't give a shit for the average person.

The fact that the way the benefits were changing not being very clear so they were unsure what was going on also had a pretty significant impact on their decision.

Note in section 2.1 that housing benefit will be paid directly to a private landlord when the tenant is in arrears for 8 weeks, are unlikely to pay their rent, or if they are unable to manage their own finances.

LHA (Local Housing Allowance) =/= UC (Universal Credit). Two different things. As far as I can tell, you can only claim on LHA, not on UC.

And? We were discussing LHA. Are you trying to gaslight?

Part of the research found that private landlords were evicting people purely on the basis that they were receiving housing benefits, as the changes the Tory government were enacting (the four year freeze on the Local Housing Allowance being a big one for that) made them uncertain about future income streams.

And what's wrong with that, exactly? If I say I'm going to give you £10 a month to live in your house, are you required to rent to me?

What's wrong wi..! How is it not wrong to make someone homeless purely on the basis that they're less profitable than some other Joe on the street?

I think if you've already agreed a contract with someone, regardless whether it's month-to-month you shouldn't be allowed to tear it up just because you can't charge them as much as someone else.

My point was that a troublesome tenant can be evicted. It takes a long-ass time, yes, I will accept that, but they can still be punted.

At which point the landlord is thousands out of pocket on something they're probably also paying a mortgage on (although I disagree with buy to let schemes...).

Then they should've done their due diligence then, eh? It's not hard to find out if someone has the ability to pay. Like I said, there can be a guarantor, which I had to get for my first rental.

Here's a guide to the process a letting agency will go through prior to letting a property.

To be fair, I'm only really interested in the first bit: references. Basically, you're going to be asked to show that you're going to be able to pay your rent. Asking a previous landlord if there were issues, doing a credit check, asking for bank details, and then employment details to make sure you have an income.

If any issues arise with these checks, they will ask for a guarantor. This is a person who will be legally responsible for paying your rent if you don't.

Essentially, a private landlord who gets into a situation in which someone won't (and I would like very much to stress that this is separate from someone who can't) pay rent is probably an idiot. Even if they are an idiot, they can still evict someone from their property, and rent it to someone else, hopefully having learned something from the experience.

I've moved property several times and never been asked for a landlord reference. Maybe it's a southern thing.

There was also a credit check, an employment check, and making sure you have a bank account mentioned.

I shudder to think what kinds of places you were living in if you didn't get anything like that.

Presumably advertising in a "no Irish allowed" manner and saying they don't want benefits recipients, because that's not discriminatory, apparently.

You're not born a benefits claimant.

No, you're not. Yet you seem to think that someone growing up in a workless household will become workless when they reach adulthood.

That's a headline and a sub-headline, unless I register for the article.

According to these guys who source the article, these people are in arrears mostly because of the way the Universal Credit is paid:

All respondents said the six-week period before a tenant receives their first UC payment is “very frequently or frequently a factor in claimants falling into arrears”.

The guys who did the report also think that these people don't have enough savings (including from their last pay cheque) to cover the cost during that time.

Basically, these people are in arrears because they can't pay, not because they won't.

UC is back-paid so it's horseshit. You get all the rent money once you've claimed so you're able to pay it back.

You get the money once they've processed your claim. Which takes 6 weeks.

I mean if you're applying for UC, chances are you don't have much cash in the first place, otherwise why would you claim it?

What are they supposed to do in the mean time?

Further, they also note that demand for money advice services, food banks, and hardship funds has increased in the areas they were surveying, as well as the surveyed saying that these tenants are using loan sharks pay day loan services to fund the shortfall.

In other words, they're putting themselves in greater financial difficulty in order to pay the bills that they can't otherwise pay.

Or mismanaging their cash on miscellaneous expenses.

Miscellaneous expenses like having a place to live, you mean?

To what miscellaneous expenses do you refer? Are all benefit recipients incapable of basic accounting?

That doesn't say whether or not the affected families were working, though.

It doesn't, but it shows the majority of high-benefits households are also high-kids. Only 10% of British households have more than three kids so it's definitely statistically significant.

Where does it say that?

Anyway, Google found this:
Office of National Statistics on working/workless families between October and December 2016.

I linked it to the part I found most interesting:

The number of children living in workless households decreased by 145,000 or 1.3 percentage points compared with the previous year to 1.3 million or 10.7% of all children, the lowest level since comparable records began. The percentage of children living in working households was at a record high of 58.3%, an increase of 2.0 percentage points over the past year.

Obviously this doesn't say whether or not these folks are receiving benefits, but there are more children in working families now (or at least a few months ago) than has ever been recorded.

Doesn't that suggest that the Conservative anti-benefits policies are working in terms of getting people into the workforce, then? :^)

Oh, of course.

Then again, if wages are so low that working families are the new poor, it doesn't rightly matter if you work or not.

Record numbers of working families with children, and two out of three of them are living in poverty. Those Tory policies are a godsend.

You made the comparison.

Less benefits, if you prefer.

Citations.

Why are you so certain that your position is correct and that mine is not? I am genuinely curious to know the answer to this, even if you ignore the rest of the post.

Because I've lived in this situation with enough of these people for long enough to know that their woes are overwhelmingly self inflicted. If you're dirt poor in modern England you've made a mess of your life and only you can fix that for yourself.

Of course.

Never mind that there was a recession a few years back, causing unemployment levels not seen for decades, that wages for the lower classes are just now getting back to pre-recession levels. Never mind that the government for the past 7 years has been cutting spending like it's going out of fashion, that they think being in the black is going to fix all the problems that exist in Britain, in doing so reducing that social safety net that exists precisely to help people out when the world goes tits up, like after a financial crash. Never mind that they increased tuition fees so that it's even more expensive for a poor person to get an education to improve their life chances, and the chances of any sprogs they generate.

These people are in the situation they're in because they don't work hard enough. Righto.

[misko27]

Is this the wall we were promised between America and Britain? Oh, wait no, it's just the Great Wall of Text. Carry on then.

[LethalShade]

Like I said, "well your experience is fucking wrong, mate"

Just dropping my non-brit two cents there. There is no such thing as a wrong experience. He's either lying (I don't really think he is) or misinterpreting/extrapolating wrongly from his experience. He didn't live a "wrong experience".