zico's mum Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 social housing is *meant* to be for those that need it, not for everyone, and there has to be a cutoff point. I am in no way justifying the family in this story, but when it comes to council housing it's *meant* to be for those that need it (eg. refugees, low income families, disabled). If it was for everyone, it wouldn't be social housing . If that's the case why is such housing allocated for life then.I know of several people still living in 3 bedroom houses long after all their children have left home.If council housing is truly for those in need tenants should be made to move when that need is no longer present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I don't know the answer to the problem zico's mum, but I do think it's a bit unfair to suggest those that have lived in a house all their lives for example should have to move out just because they can't afford to buy. I do understand the problem, but then again I've seen people get moved out of long term homes that they've raised their family in because the need for those houses was great enough and the kids had flown the nest (and therefore didn't have the ability to come home once their mum and dad were shifted). Personally I think it has to be for life in some cases. If I could keep this house when I start working, I'd love to. Sadly social housing isn't always cheap (this house is £85 a week as opposed to about £60 a week council house rent) and with this house I'm not allowed the right to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laura g Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 The article didn't make it clear whether the family would be staying in that house or moving back when their old was was sorted? Also didnt make it clear whether the council have purchased the house for the people or are contract renting it. I would suspect the latter. fact is that councils dont carry sufficient stock for families of this size. Buying an 8 bedroom detached in Newbury for 350k actually sounds like a bit of a bargain as seen from a 3 bedroom bungalow that cost the same!! we looked at contract renting our house in wales to the council. 7 bedroom 3 reception. they didnt want to know. 'no need for it'. pity really because could have moved these guys to Wales - but the headline 'jobless family of 12 in a £170,000 house' is not nearly as effective. Its a tough subject. 'Supposed' house costs dont bother me because I think the whole property market sucks. I'm off the ladder at the moment with no intention of getting back on and playing a mugs game. Having said that, I have friends who are unemployed. He is now a mature student. She stays at home with 4 children. Assorted cats and dogs. Car each. All that I can live with. Life it too short. What gets my goat is that they can somehow afford time and money for three flaming horses!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoebejo Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 If that's the case why is such housing allocated for life then.I know of several people still living in 3 bedroom houses long after all their children have left home.If council housing is truly for those in need tenants should be made to move when that need is no longer present. I think people in that situation can be offered financial incentives to downsize by the council. I know of two people who after living in three bedroomed houses for years got help to move into a one bedroom bungalow once their children had left home and they were widowed. They can't be forced into it but it is encouraged and they can get help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I, and social housing is *meant* to be for those that need it, not for everyone, and there has to be a cutoff point. If people who can work but choose not to/pretend they can't, were to actually get off their arses and go to work, perhaps people like Cheryl wouldn't have to pay so much tax in order to support people on benefits. Then she would have more money for herself and perhaps wouldn't have to work all those extra hours. It seems wrong to me that some people can just sit at home churning out kids and get it all paid for, whilst people like Cheryl and I work very hard to pay for them to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I completely agree. This is one thing that makes my blood boil. It isn't a fair society we live in at all. There are so many people working all the hours god sends to try to scratch a living together while others sit on their backsides laughing. I have worked my a*se off since I was 16 years 2 months old and have never been allowed to claim any kind of benefits. To be honest I'm not the type that would claim anyway but it's the principal. I'm sick of paying taxes to pay for other people. I have a family member who disgusts me completely. She deliberately had a little boy so that she could remain on the dole. She managed to stay out of work for about 7 years. Never made any attempt to find a job. She was given a lovely house. She has more nice things in her house than I had at her age. When I started out on the property ladder I ended up in a house that was un-inhabitable. Had no heating and no cooking facilities. I had a permanent cold through the winter months. The house turned out to be a disaster. One thing happened after another and my savings I had sensibly put together soon went. I couldn't afford to sort it out and was really stuck. It took me ages to save up having 3 jobs at the time to get as much money together as I could. Why can't this man do the bloody same. It was their choice to have 12 children. I tell you what though I'd rather be me than them. I have no problems with people that genuinely need to be on benefits. It's true what you say though zicos. I know a lot of people who have been able to rent council houses for several decades. It isn't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amanda72 Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I did start off with benefits, when I was 16yrs, as I had a baby and a flat to keep, it was difficult, and beleive me as soon as my last son was born, by the time he was two and a half I was working, yes the money dropped as I was better off claiming, I got all the benefits, council tax etc... But one I started to work, it was hard but I got used to it, I have never looked back, I do not want to rely on the gorvernment to give me money each week. This family are spongers and I think their benefits should be halved and make them get off their lazy fat Arses and get a job, there is no reason why he could not get an evening or night shift job, and she get a part time day job, they would still get working tax credit, child tax credit and help with nursery costs... No bloody excuse in my mind.. I used to do night shifts, and my husband day shifts with three kids, yes they have 12, but I am sure the younger ones can go into a nursery, and if the older ones can not look after themselves there will always be a parent as one would be there whilst the other one isn't, it's not bloody rocket science!!!!!!!!!! Sorry ranting over........... "big breath in and breath out" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 If people who can work but choose not to/pretend they can't, were to actually get off their arses and go to work, perhaps people like Cheryl wouldn't have to pay so much tax in order to support people on benefits. Then she would have more money for herself and perhaps wouldn't have to work all those extra hours. It seems wrong to me that some people can just sit at home churning out kids and get it all paid for, whilst people like Cheryl and I work very hard to pay for them to do it. Not sure why you chose my quote to pick up on this, but fair point. I don't think in all honesty it'd make a blind bit of difference though. Someone with 12 kids is still going to get hundreds of pounds worth of benefits whether they're working or not. When I was working as a VN on minimum wage I was getting £100-£149 a week family credit - I've only got 3 children and I was working up to 80 hours a week, so what would that chap get for his 12? So whether this family works or not (and I think they should - that wasn't my point), you'd still be paying for them. It's not a black and white winning situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happylittlegreensquirrel Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I agree that its right that there is minimum amount of money a family or individual is expected to live on and its right if someone is earning a very low wage that its topped up with benefits (is it tax/family credit ? ) but its damn wrong for anyone of working age who is fit and able to work not to and there is no excuse for it , none at all I have no objections for part of my taxes being used to support those less fortunate that me, but I do object to paying towards keeping people who have no intention of working ( and thats different to not being able to work ) The negative side of having a welfare system is that it will be abused by some sections of the community , those people are cheating the both tax payer and also those in real need of benefits by taking money that should be directed to those who have no choice but to rely on state help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 If I remember rightly the house was a hotel that the council bought for £350k, the other £150k was spent on converting it and furnishing it for them. I don tget why it was furnished for them. That isnt standard practive with council propertys. but its damn wrong for anyone of working age who is fit and able to work not to and there is no excuse for it , none at all I have no objections for part of my taxes being used to support those less fortunate that me, but I do object to paying towards keeping people who have no intention of working ( and thats different to not being able to work ) I am fit and able to work but dont I do get a small amount of benefits because OH works. I dont work as although i would have a sitter for the kids, my youngest is only 2 and im her mum not the sitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laura g Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 The article 'estimated' that the place cost 150k to renovate and furnish. doesnt say it was specifically for them. could have been for any tenant. i think its a hard one. . i was looking at their income. they net roughly the same as us - disposable income after housing costs and rates are taken out. bringing up 2 kids on that is hard enough. let alone 12. Whatever you think of these people, they have a large family and that's not going to change. we know the system should change. but what about these guys in the meantime? Playing devils advocate here a bit perhaps. Are they a victim of the system as well as a beneficiary? when alls said and done, is it better that they are at least at home for their family rather than relying on nursery and after school child care? oh and ps: 12 children at 35 years old. just 35! blimey crikey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redditchlady Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 The article 'estimated' that the place cost 150k to renovate and furnish. doesnt say it was specifically for them. could have been for any tenant. i think its a hard one. . i was looking at their income. they net roughly the same as us - disposable income after housing costs and rates are taken out. bringing up 2 kids on that is hard enough. let alone 12. Whatever you think of these people, they have a large family and that's not going to change. we know the system should change. but what about these guys in the meantime? Playing devils advocate here a bit perhaps. Are they a victim of the system as well as a beneficiary? when alls said and done, is it better that they are at least at home for their family rather than relying on nursery and after school child care? oh and ps: 12 children at 35 years old. just 35! blimey crikey! Sorry to quote you Laura. But you say their net income is the same as yours. I guess you work for yours and you don't have 12 kiddies. Sorry to quote you there. But I rest my case. Kazz xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Not sure why you chose my quote to pick up on this, but fair point. I don't think in all honesty it'd make a blind bit of difference though. Someone with 12 kids is still going to get hundreds of pounds worth of benefits whether they're working or not. When I was working as a VN on minimum wage I was getting £100-£149 a week family credit - I've only got 3 children and I was working up to 80 hours a week, so what would that chap get for his 12? So whether this family works or not (and I think they should - that wasn't my point), you'd still be paying for them. It's not a black and white winning situation. Would we still be paying as much for them as we do now though? Are you saying that a working family with 12 kids would get the same benefits as a non working family with 12 kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 No they wouldn't be getting *as* much (I didn't say that), but they would be getting an awfully large amount. I got nearly as much benefits working as I do now, and like I said, I only have 3 children. They have 12 kids, a huge rent to pay and prolly much higher council tax, so the benefits they'll get if one of them works full time hours on minimum wage would be massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted July 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Got to agree with Sam - anyone who is of age and fit to work, should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts