View Single Post
Old 14-08-2019, 14:25   #2223
nomadking
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb, V6 STB
Posts: 7,861
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter View Post
You've clearly never had to experience the death of a child.

Seeing as you're back to trying to politicise this thread, the 'overlarge' rule for the private rented sector was brought in on 15/1/89 by the Tories at the same time that Housing Benefit claims had to be referred to the Rent Officer to ensure that it was not 'significantly above a reasonable market rent'. This was after they abolished the right to have a 'Fair Rent' registered, meaning that on the one hand rent controls were abolished, but the Government didn't want to pay out more in Housing Benefit, thus leaving people to pay the difference out of the money intended for day to day living expenses.

When the idea of abolishing rent controls was first mooted, Thatcher said that she would be prepared to pay out extra Housing Benefit, but when it happened, this was reneged on.
Why should somebody be entitled to full housing benefit so they can live in a large oversized mansion? Common sense really. The changes brought along with the "bedroom tax", were not only beneficial to claimants, but things that mysteriously the previous Labour Government chose not to introduce. Instead they chose not increase the money paid to the landlords by setting the LHA rates much too high. Rents then increased to match those excessive rates, with Landlords safe in the knowledge HB(ie the taxpayer) would cover it.
nomadking is offline   Reply With Quote