Got to agree Dave, benefits are pointless and should be abolished, any money saved if not put back into the coffers for more important work should go into producing real jobs, funding small business and helping them to grow...getting the banks to give us cash to grow and allowing us to employ more people...I could easily take 10 more staff if the government gave me half their benefits in tax cuts and allowed me to be flexible with hiring and firing...
u stupid fuck u take money off people who havent got any wot will it cause if they havent got it they will take it it will cause mayhem and crime this is from someone who doesnt live in the posh centre talk 2 people who rearly havent got fuckall u dumb bastard ring me on 07747093812 i expect u will get this message after u have bin shopping at waitrose im goin netto u nobhead
This is one of the biggest problems facing modern society, until the
Scroungers have to balance effort put in to money drawn out the
Beneficial effects of government policy though much needed will be
Stunted. the community job idea is ideal if it becomes reality because
It will fulfil many needs, an hours work for an hours pay no matter
How menial will teach the individual much that the working
Population take for granted without the input of an army of social
Workers. Bring it on
Sorry Mr Stupid Fuck, you r right if we took money off the scroungers crime would increase but should you have read further the idea is to trade effort for reward, in some areas this is called a job but it does mean living again in real society being responsible for stuff, not just sitting around with the hand out for more freebies.
Of course for people and families let down by the previous government and left to rot in this situation for a generation or maybe more the remedy will be a shock but unavoidable but not to worry I doubt the government has the will for it.
I don't see you as a Netto nobhead so don't have such a downer on yourself
Totally agree with you there. I know similar family situations you have described. No interest in working or even spending the vast amount of money they do receive in benefits on their kids. This country is going down hill fast.
Perhaps in stead of not casting a vote you should think about who you cast it for, I am sure all those university people who voted Lib dems and who have just woken up to how people say one thing and do not keep the promise act, shame on Lib dems .
However on the topic , I totally agrea with you I am sick of paying for all the scroungers in this county , but I do urge Mr Cameron to look at how to help those who have worked all there lives , never taken a penny from the state and who will loose there jobs shortly , those we should look on in a different light!!
Totaly agrea with you, I work dam hard not on 40%tax, my wife has to do 2 jobs which makes her pay 40%tax on all income from 2nd job , and all this to live in a normal house and pay the way for a son at university.
We should all pay for what we use on a use and pay basis , see the scroungers get a job then ,oh and to pay for the fags and bingo !!!!
I am aware of someone who has committed benefit fraud by claiming housing benefit, not paying their landlord and then doing a ‘moonlight flit’ to another council area where she is again going to claim housing benefit.
This adds up to three months housing benefit of around £3500.
I have reported this to the Kingston council fraud section who tell me that there is no central database of housing benefit claimers and therefore someone could go from council to council committing fraud? This seems crazy?!
I was also told by Kingston benefits fraud section that for £3500 they probably would not take it any further? This is theft ! how can it not be taken further?!
If this person was paid the housing benefit they were due but did not pass it on to the landlord, then it is the Landlord who is out of pocket not the Council, the council would not pay the Landlord for his loss, that is why most Landlords have default insurance to cover them if someone does not pay the rent, and why most Letting agencies will not accept benefit claimants as they are too risky..........Can't see your point as to why you say it is theft and expect the council to chase them......It is a debt to the Landlord not theft from the council, the council paid them the housing benefit they were due what they did with it afterwards has nothing to do with the council........It is up to the Landlord to chase them for what he is owed, so maybe you should be giving your information on their whereabouts to their previous Landlord.
As you say the landlord probably has insurance, so won't be bothered chasing either, meaning ultimately we all end up paying for it via increased insurance premiums which are charged to offset the "losses". Another example of "crime does pay" and one of those crimes that some people like to think of as "victimless", when in fact we are all victims.....
I have to agree that this is theft. The Landlord may have lost out but if he savy he will have insurance. The Council however have given this woman £3500 for rent that she has not paid
which amounts to theft from the tax payer.
Sorry, but I think you will find that technically this is not theft......is there such a charge as theft against the taxpayer?.......I don't think so....It may be theft in principal, but not in law...........the council fulfilled their obligations by paying this person the housing benefit they were due, if they chose to spend that on other things that is not the councils problem.......it follows though that in a case where if the tenant were evicted by the Landlord for non payment of rent then the council would not be obliged to re-house them if they were homeless as it was their own fault for deliberately not paying the rent.........Only charge then against this person is rent arrears to the Landlord, and that, as I said is the Landlords problem.
TJ you are probably right when you say it is regarded as theft in principal only. However, from a personal point of view I say it is theft. The money was paid as a specific benefit and the lady did not use it for the purpose for which it was intended so in effect she has stolen the money.
In the MPs' expenses fiasco the money that was claimed for mortgages that did not exist
and rents for invalid properties was the same as housing benefit for the general public. Some
MPs have gone to prison (as they rightly should) I think the two situations are comparable.
Except in this case the property was a valid one and not a ficticious one and so they claimed their housing benefit legitimately......Had an MP done the same thing, i.e claimed for a legitimate mortgage and then not paid the mortgage and had the property reposessed, that would not have been fraud as he was within his rights to claim for the mortgage....any problems resulting from him not paying the mortgage would then be entirely his own, but he would certainly not be guilty of fraud in that case.
I believe that with council housing and housing associations properties, all housing benefit is paid direct.......in the case of private Landlords I think they can apply to have the rent paid direct if they are having trouble getting their rent paid on a regular basis.
If you are a local authority tenant, you will NOT get your Housing Benefit paid to you directly. Instead it will be taken off your rent so that you either pay no rent or a reduced rent (also known as a rent rebate).
If you are a private or housing association tenant and you don't come under the Local Housing Allowance rules, you may get Housing Benefit paid directly to you or to your landlord, depending on your circumstances.
If you come under the Local Housing Allowance Rules, your local authority will normally pay Housing Benefit to you, rather than to your landlord. You will NOT be able to choose to have it paid direct to your landlord. However, there will still be some circumstances where your local authority can decide to pay Benefit direct to your landlord instead of you, for example, if you're unlikely to pay the rent or have difficulty managing money.