Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Angry Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls



    Video: George Osborne in the UK parliament announcing that as part of his spending review he wants to restrict housing benefit for under 35s to pay only for room rent in a shared accommodation, not for a single person's house or flat.

    Well then British adults. Are we happy to become Tory rent boys and girls taking it up the arse from the Queen's ministers or are you ready for a war?

    Brand New Fight The Cuts forum

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,935
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    I don't see why the state should have to pay for single people to live on their own, when there are couples and families that desperately need help with housing costs.

    On the other hand, successive governments keep tampering with housing benefit.........when what they should be doing is limiting the rents that greedy landlords charge.
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours ." Steven Roberts

    The likelyhood of you being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions.

    Barack Hussein Obama, the president that got Bin Laden!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rural South Midlands
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
    I don't see why the state should have to pay for single people to live on their own, when there are couples and families that desperately need help with housing costs.
    Quite. Living on one's own is a personal choice, and if you can't afford to do so, don't expect the state - i.e., the taxpayer - to subsidise you other than in extreme instances and for a very short time.

    On the other hand, successive governments keep tampering with housing benefit.........when what they should be doing is limiting the rents that greedy landlords charge.
    Yes to the first part, we need a very clearly defined and easy to understand way of determining its level and how, and to whom, it's paid. To the second part, can you define what you mean by "greedy landlords"? Have you ever been in the position of renting out a house and having to not only make what might be called a reasonable profit but to pay for all the obvious and hidden costs involved in owning and renting a property? OK there are a few landlords who charge rents above that which both the property itself would dictate and what the local housing market determines, but the vast majority of landlords have a net income from their properties which is in single figure percentages.
    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant only an intellectual could ignore it - Thomas Sowell

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,935
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    Quote Originally Posted by Midas View Post
    Yes to the first part, we need a very clearly defined and easy to understand way of determining its level and how, and to whom, it's paid. To the second part, can you define what you mean by "greedy landlords"? Have you ever been in the position of renting out a house and having to not only make what might be called a reasonable profit but to pay for all the obvious and hidden costs involved in owning and renting a property? OK there are a few landlords who charge rents above that which both the property itself would dictate and what the local housing market determines, but the vast majority of landlords have a net income from their properties which is in single figure percentages.

    I'm talking about the kind of landlords that rent out properties that you'd be prosecuted if you kept a dog in them, and there is a lot of them. I know of a lot of landlords that rent to students, nurses, and other groups of young people that ignore reports of repairs and maintinence that needs doing. I know of landlords that include service charges such as window cleaning and gardening, and never actually provide it. I know of landlords that pressure needy tennants into illegal rent agreements so that they can keep their houses up for sale while renting them, the tennant having to put up with people viewing the property with only a few hours notice.
    Britain is becoming like other countries in that more and more people are having to rent, a scandal in my view, facilitated by the last corrupt government, but that's another thread.
    In light of that, there should be more regulation on private sector rent agreements. Longer tenancies, more accountability to landlords etc. The 6 month contract and then an unwritten roll over agreement with an option to give 2 months notice is simply unacceptable for a family with children settled in schools etc.

    As well as this, in the south east in particular there are landlords that are charging extortionate rates, knowing full well that the state is meeting the cost.
    Everytime we see some headline about a family getting 20k per year in housing benefit, and the country takes a collective sharp intake, they fail to realise that there is a landlord somewhere getting that money.
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours ." Steven Roberts

    The likelyhood of you being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions.

    Barack Hussein Obama, the president that got Bin Laden!

  5. #5
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Well then British adults. Are we happy to become Tory rent boys and girls taking it up the arse from the Queen's ministers or are you ready for a war?
    Please explain why the British taxpayer should pay for a single person to live in a house or flat on their own. A room in a shared house is perfectly acceptable, particularly when it is being paid for by someone else. If someone wants something better then they have the incentive to earn it for themselves. Otherwise they should expect to receive no more than basic living accommodation.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 42 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    As a single person aged under 35 I really don't see the problem.

    Not entirely sure I agree with the age limit on it though, it shouldn't make a difference.
    So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek


    Economic Left/Right: 4.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,935
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    Quote Originally Posted by JacquesMagique View Post
    As a single person aged under 35 I really don't see the problem.

    Not entirely sure I agree with the age limit on it though, it shouldn't make a difference.
    I think the age limit has been raised to reflect the growing number of single people in their 30's.
    The whole issue of housing should be totally reformed anyway. This strikes me as tinkering with a huge problem instead of getting stuck into it. Housing is becoming more scarce for our growing population. There needs to be much more public sector property made available, either by building more or buying up existing empty properties. There needs tobe more regulations on landlords, and some form of standardising of rent agreements.
    This mess has been created by 30 years of the policy of greed with regard to property. Property has become a comodity to be bought and sold as fast as possible with maximum profit, and sod all the people left out of the market. Seems to me that the notion that properties (houses) are predominantly peoples homes has been lost along the way. We're forever bombarded with these ridiculous programs of people hoovering up property to make as much prifit as possible and talking about vast sums of money as if it's loose change. Meanwhile a whole generation of people on modest incomes have been elbowed out of home ownership, probably forever. Those on modest incomes that can scrape enough together to buy a home will probably just about finish the mortgage the same day they drop dead. Their kids won't benefit because millions of ordinary people have now been thrust into the inheritence tax bracket through no fault of there own, so mum and dads house now has to be sold by the probate court to settle the estate.
    The old saying "An Englishmans home is his castle" will soon be obsolete the way things are going, replaced with "An Englishmans home is someone elses castle".
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours ." Steven Roberts

    The likelyhood of you being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions.

    Barack Hussein Obama, the president that got Bin Laden!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    MPs & councillors who won't fight the cuts.

    To get the real Fight The Cuts campaign under way full steam, the other fraudulent campaign against the cuts must be exposed as the sham it is.

    I am talking about those Labour and nationalist MPs in the Westminster parliament who claim to oppose cuts yet who swear loyalty to the Queen whose government is imposing these cuts and indeed who aspire to become Queen's ministers of the crown and rule the kingdom for the Queen.

    I am talking about members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Councillors who will claim to oppose the cuts yet who will be the very ones who will fail to raise local taxes to replace penny for penny every cut made, who will fail to take over responsibility to make welfare payments when the UK Department of Work and Pensions reduces or stops welfare payments and who instead will use the kingdom's police and courts to enforce the cuts and tame any popular resistance to the cuts.

    I am talking about Trades Union Congress officials who will want to invite opposition politicians from parliaments, assemblies and councils to speak at stop-the-cuts rallies. They mean well but trade union leaders do not have the wits to see when politicians are playing politicians' games, posturing opposition but in reality surrendering to cuts.

    Only when all these fake opponents to the cuts are exposed as worthless wind-bags who will sit back and allow cuts can the real Fight The Cuts campaign begin in earnest.

    What is the test? The test is opposition or loyalty to the kingdom and its head of state, the Queen. To fight the cuts seriously we, the people, must call on our national military to fight the kingdom and fight its head of state, the Queen. We, the people, must be prepared to ask our military to kill the Queen if we are serious about killing her government's cuts.

    Therefore take seriously any person claiming to fight the cuts who also calls for immediate military action against the royal family to exclude them from the country on pain of arrest, attack and assassination.

    Given the choice between allowing the Queen's cuts and calling for the Queen's death - which choice does a politician claiming to oppose the cuts make?

    Anyone who is for war against the Queen and her kingdom, as I am, is serious about fighting Her Majesty's Government's cuts, as I am.

    Any politician or indeed any leader up on a stage with a microphone who is not for that war is not really serious about fighting cuts and is more concerned to keep in with the kingdom which has given them position in its bodies such as parliaments, assemblies and councils.

    Fight The Cuts FORUM


    Discuss in this forum -

    • how to Fight The Cuts?
    • Taxing & spending - conservative less versus socialist more - an important debate everywhere in the world.
    • People power - when the police state prevents the poor from taking what food and essentials they need, enforces evictions and tries to stop us protesting these cuts as loudly as a free people ought to be allowed to, is that finally a popular cause for a war for freedom against fascist heads of states and their ministers and officers to assert rights to social security and civil liberties in a free country?


    The U.K. government of Thatcher's children - David Cameron and George Osborne of the Conservative and Unionist Party and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats - are pushing through savage cuts to the British welfare state; social security, housing benefit and other spending on public services slashed in an effort to balance the UK's books.

  9. #9
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    MPs & councillors who won't fight the cuts.

    To get the real Fight The Cuts campaign under way full steam, the other fraudulent campaign against the cuts must be exposed as the sham it is.

    I am talking about those Labour and nationalist MPs in the Westminster parliament who claim to oppose cuts yet who swear loyalty to the Queen whose government is imposing these cuts and indeed who aspire to become Queen's ministers of the crown and rule the kingdom for the Queen.

    I am talking about members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Councillors who will claim to oppose the cuts yet who will be the very ones who will fail to raise local taxes to replace penny for penny every cut made, who will fail to take over responsibility to make welfare payments when the UK Department of Work and Pensions reduces or stops welfare payments and who instead will use the kingdom's police and courts to enforce the cuts and tame any popular resistance to the cuts.

    I am talking about Trades Union Congress officials who will want to invite opposition politicians from parliaments, assemblies and councils to speak at stop-the-cuts rallies. They mean well but trade union leaders do not have the wits to see when politicians are playing politicians' games, posturing opposition but in reality surrendering to cuts.

    Only when all these fake opponents to the cuts are exposed as worthless wind-bags who will sit back and allow cuts can the real Fight The Cuts campaign begin in earnest.

    What is the test? The test is opposition or loyalty to the kingdom and its head of state, the Queen. To fight the cuts seriously we, the people, must call on our national military to fight the kingdom and fight its head of state, the Queen. We, the people, must be prepared to ask our military to kill the Queen if we are serious about killing her government's cuts.

    Therefore take seriously any person claiming to fight the cuts who also calls for immediate military action against the royal family to exclude them from the country on pain of arrest, attack and assassination.

    Given the choice between allowing the Queen's cuts and calling for the Queen's death - which choice does a politician claiming to oppose the cuts make?

    Anyone who is for war against the Queen and her kingdom, as I am, is serious about fighting Her Majesty's Government's cuts, as I am.

    Any politician or indeed any leader up on a stage with a microphone who is not for that war is not really serious about fighting cuts and is more concerned to keep in with the kingdom which has given them position in its bodies such as parliaments, assemblies and councils.

    Fight The Cuts FORUM


    Discuss in this forum -


    • how to Fight The Cuts?
    • Taxing & spending - conservative less versus socialist more - an important debate everywhere in the world.
    • People power - when the police state prevents the poor from taking what food and essentials they need, enforces evictions and tries to stop us protesting these cuts as loudly as a free people ought to be allowed to, is that finally a popular cause for a war for freedom against fascist heads of states and their ministers and officers to assert rights to social security and civil liberties in a free country?



    The U.K. government of Thatcher's children - David Cameron and George Osborne of the Conservative and Unionist Party and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats - are pushing through savage cuts to the British welfare state; social security, housing benefit and other spending on public services slashed in an effort to balance the UK's books.
    I think your room for single occupancy ought to have padded walls and a solid lock on the outside!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rural South Midlands
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: Osborne says under 35s are only room rent boys & girls

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    MPs & councillors who won't fight the cuts.

    To get the real Fight The Cuts campaign under way full steam, the other fraudulent campaign against the cuts must be exposed as the sham it is.

    [ ... ]
    Quite frankly people with this attitude could cause as much, if not more, damage to the country, both economically and socially, than the Labour government who made the global economic crisis far worse than it needed to have been by their reckless borrowing and spending, ever did.

    But can we please keep this thread to George Osborne's restriction of housing benefit......
    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant only an intellectual could ignore it - Thomas Sowell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •