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.
Did you read my last post or did you just want to shout for no reason?I mean, you're miles away from anything i'm saying but have fun!
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.
Yes, they are a luxury. You don't need them to survive. Understand that is the definition of a luxury: Something inessential that you want.
No, I didn't live that barebones of an upbringing because we
were able to afford luxuries, even in a house where my only parent was a single Mum working as a cleaner who got a bunch of the child care benefits. We had internet, a computer, toys, games, consoles etc etc. Because we were able to afford luxuries at the lowest level of wage possible.
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.
I didn't twist anything and we both know it. Just because I pointed the flaw in what you were saying doesn't mean I twisted it.
What's your point?
It's called establishing points. I set out facts I feel will be relevant later on. You don't see how rent benefits being paid to the tenant instead of the landlord is relevant?
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.
Even then: Why should the banks risk not getting a return on their money? You know that's how the housing market crashed last time, right? What do you want banks to do "Oh, you HAVE to rent to people on benefits even if you don't end up getting enough money to pay your mortgage and go into hardship yourself"?
And? We were discussing LHA. Are you trying to gaslight?
LHA has been rolled into UC since like October of 2015. UC's rules are different to LHA's (it's a mixed benefits income so that it's supposedly harder to cheat the system). From what I understand of it, UC can't be paid to the landlord because it's mixed benefits, so there's dole, sickpay etc etc.
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.
Because that's how the world works.
You think that but:
1. It's not the case.
2. You only think that because you don't own a property.
3. You don't have a right to live in someone else's house.
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.
OR they could just not rent to welfare tenants and have a much lower chance of getting a problem, huh?
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.
Oh, sure, credit checks etc are pretty standard. This is all besides the point, though.
No, you're not. Yet you seem to think that someone growing up in a workless household will become workless when they reach adulthood.
From my experience, pretty much the case. Still, you're not born it, you're raised it. Why should you work when you've seen your parents live comfortably for years without working?
Oh, and
this study confirms it that you're twice as likely to end up workless if you're in a workless household.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?
You get backpay on it. So you'll end up with that 6 weeks back and able to pay your landlord the difference.
You say: "Landlord I've gone onto benefits but it'll take up to 6 weeks can I pay it to you then?"
And because your landlord likes money he says: "Yes."
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?
Miscellaneous expenses like brand new phones, brand new TVs, games consoles etc etc.
And, yeah, they are.
Where does it say that?
Did you not pass your maths GCSE?
If 65% of people who were hit with a benefits cap (as in, cap on maximum benefits claimable) had three or more kids and only 10% of the British population has three or more kids then we can say it's statistically significant and that high benefits households have a high amount of children.
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.
This is the result of the government paying for housing. Landlords set the base rent on ANY house to £400 due to the fact they can claim that off the government at any point by allowing a benefits tenant in. This has priced working class people out.
(Nevermind that working class people have the same luxuries problem as benefits scroungers, but that's beside the point.)
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.
Yeah, that is the case. Get a STEM degree ("OH THEY'RE RAISING TUITION" - Yeah but you'll never pay it back anyway) or a trade and you can be comfortable by the time you're 30 and relatively rich by the time you're 40. Just don't do an "apprenticeship" in a call centre or a degree in feminist dance theory and you'll be fine.
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1104172 times)