Vote Tory and end up homeless.

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
**** them. If you get up to £500 a week to pay on rent, and cannot find anywhere to live in London - THEN ****ing MOVE.

I'd love to live in Camden, or Westminster, and walk to work. I can't afford it, I live somewhere I can afford, but then again I have to pay for it myself.

It's not tricky, is it?
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#4
Probably a good job that the people who're ending up on the streets probably didn't bother to vote, and if they did probably voted Labour.

And beside the BBC articles says families would be capped to a total of around £500 benefits a week or around £26k a year. The Mrs and I earn only just more than this but we manage to pay southern amounts of rent, all our bills and taxes and receive no benefits at all. If the scroungers either got jobs or tried to live within their means then they wouldn't end up on the streets.

BBC News - Eric Pickles' office warned No 10 on benefits cap plan
 

Pararegtom

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
#7
Well that's going to screw thee viewing figures for the Jeremy kyle show. Most of the types that will end up homeless though i somehow seriously doubt they will are of the type of feckless shameless layabouts that deserve to be turfed on to the streets anyhow. Can't afford to live where they want work harder and better your position till you can afford it. It's called a target to achieve.
 
#9
**** them. If you get up to £500 a week to pay on rent, and cannot find anywhere to live in London - THEN ****ing MOVE.

I'd love to live in Camden, or Westminster, and walk to work. I can't afford it, I live somewhere I can afford, but then again I have to pay for it myself.

It's not tricky, is it?
Old snowy: You miss understand, It's not £500 to pay for your rent, it's a cap of £500 per house hold per week of the maximum social security benefits allowed into any one household regardless of how many people are claiming benefits within any one household.

This is going to cause a lot of arguments on who get's what in households of multiple claimants.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#10
Old snowy: You miss understand, It's not £500 to pay for your rent, it's a cap of £500 per house hold per week of the maximum social security benefits allowed into any one household regardless of how many people are claiming benefits within any one household.

This is going to cause a lot of arguments on who get's what in households of multiple claimants.
How many working families earn £500?
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#11
Old snowy: You miss understand, It's not £500 to pay for your rent, it's a cap of £500 per house hold per week of the maximum social security benefits allowed into any one household regardless of how many people are claiming benefits within any one household.

This is going to cause a lot of arguments on who get's what in households of multiple claimants.
That's still 2k a month in benefits per household, my mrs and I both work full time only bring home a little more than this. The scroungers should get jobs.
 
#13
Ah,I think I can see a way around this.

I live in London,and sponge of the decent hard working taxpayers,cos I'm a lazy bastard,and demand the world owes me a living!

That nasty Mr CMD is gonna cut my benefits,so I can't pay the exorbitant rent that my scummy landlord charges me because he knows the council will pay whatever he charges me,which means I become homeless.

However,because I am homeless, the council have to rehouse me,but rather than do that,they have an arrangement with a seaside council (I hope it's Frinton-on-Sea,such a nice class of people),that have lower rents (within the new guidelines),so they ship me off,pay the lower rent to my new landlord,and I bring a bit of life back into Frinton (with it's one chip shop).

Everybodys happy,the council pay less for my digs,so saving money,Frinton get to fill up their remaining empty boarding houses,and I get a suntan,job jobbed! :biggrin:
 
#14
Old snowy: You miss understand, It's not £500 to pay for your rent, it's a cap of £500 per house hold per week of the maximum social security benefits allowed into any one household regardless of how many people are claiming benefits within any one household.

This is going to cause a lot of arguments on who get's what in households of multiple claimants.
24 grand a year for doing **** all? How many people who work for a living are going to be sad about that? Maybe when the first family is evicted, hopefully on a snowy day, word will get around.

The school where I worked had third generation non workers, all on benefits, granny, mummy, daughter and sprog. All paid for out of my taxes, so I had to scrimp and save, to pay for some doley ****'s plasma, which I can't afford.

I know you posted this to fire up the outrage bus, but you pulled out the wrong work ticket.

Are you employed yourself? Or facing a prolonged camping trip?
 
#15
A letter from the office of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles in January said this meant the proposed £500-a-week cap could cost more than it saved.

So if it is going to cost more than it saves, what is the logic behind making people homeless ??

Regarding all state benefits in the United Kingdom. It was the government who invented them all and made it the peoples right to claim them by law if one was entitled to qualify.
 
#17
Nobody is obliged to be either homeless or unemployed. Relocate them to a rural county and give them a caravan and a job picking fruit and veg. Pay them by the weight of produce picked and let them take a bag home every day to eat instead of Iceland pizza or kebabs.
New home, fresh air, exercise, healthy diet and money in their pockets.

What's the next social problem that needs solving?
 
#18
#20
A letter from the office of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles in January said this meant the proposed £500-a-week cap could cost more than it saved.

So if it is going to cost more than it saves, what is the logic behind making people homeless ??

You mean apart from the fact that Eric Pickles denies it was him,so maybe some flunky trying to make a name for himself,that doesn't actually know what he's talking about,I wonder?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top