if you work its your choice what you spend your money on.
i actually think benefit should not be cash at all.
you get a set amount for utilities, ensuring gas, electric, water is all provided and no child will be without. food vouchers are issued for food,not tobacco or alcohol.
if you dont like this get a job. in this country not paying your way grants you more rights than doing so.
i no doubt willbe flamed for this.
im not saying its easy to get a job, but you want respect and choices then earn that right.
benefits should be for no longer than a 6 month safety net and then if you stillhave no job you help out in the community ,even if only for 3 hours a week.
if you want the assistance of the state then i think its only fair that the tax payer knows the money for rent is spent on rent.
xx fem xx
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
direct payment
I wont flame you Fem, I will say that I couldn't disagree with these views more.
Quote by fem_4_taboo
if you work its your choice what you spend your money on.
i actually think benefit should not be cash at all.
you get a set amount for utilities, ensuring gas, electric, water is all provided and no child will be without. food vouchers are issued for food,not tobacco or alcohol.
if you dont like this get a job. in this country not paying your way grants you more rights than doing so.
i no doubt willbe flamed for this.
im not saying its easy to get a job, but you want respect and choices then earn that right.
benefits should be for no longer than a 6 month safety net and then if you stillhave no job you help out in the community ,even if only for 3 hours a week.
if you want the assistance of the state then i think its only fair that the tax payer knows the money for rent is spent on rent.
xx fem xx
Quote by fem_4_taboo
if you work its your choice what you spend your money on.
i actually think benefit should not be cash at all.
you get a set amount for utilities, ensuring gas, electric, water is all provided and no child will be without. food vouchers are issued for food,not tobacco or alcohol.
if you dont like this get a job. in this country not paying your way grants you more rights than doing so.
i no doubt willbe flamed for this.
im not saying its easy to get a job, but you want respect and choices then earn that right.
benefits should be for no longer than a 6 month safety net and then if you stillhave no job you help out in the community ,even if only for 3 hours a week.
if you want the assistance of the state then i think its only fair that the tax payer knows the money for rent is spent on rent.
xx fem xx
Well I think good and valid points indeed.
Six months is more than long enough to get a job, but many want a brain surgeons job, or something in space travel.
But because those come along rarely then ya normal job does not interest some.
I think any work in the community should be compulsary after six months out of work. That SHOULD be good for self esteem whilst helping their local community. Sounds a great idea.
I really hope none of you are ever in a situation so bad you need to claim benefits .... that you never feel depressed and worthless because you cant find a job or because smug 'tax payers' lord it above you that they can have a choice, they want to know where every penny is spent because they work but you don't. Because although they may have worked for 30 odd years (paying tax) in the same job and have now been laid off are of an age that you are virtually unemployable.
Think on those of us fortunate enough to be working at the moment - I know many working at LDV, again filing for administration, not knowing if they have a job or will have one. But they know if they are out of a job it will be very difficult to get another. There skill set isnt needed as much, look how long it took the Rover guys to find jobs and they was before the recession. Many of these people went to work there from school, probably have not got many qualifications relevant outside there current workplace.
Are you really saying a man of 50 after working 30 yrs and paying taxes isnt allowed during the time he is out of work to have a cheque sent to him to pay his landlord ? Is he that incapable - after all he has only worked for 30 yrs and ran a house and paid bills for that long too, but I suppose now he is out of work he cant even manage that hey ????
Think on those of us fortunate enough to be working at the moment - I know many working at LDV, again filing for administration, not knowing if they have a job or will have one. But they know if they are out of a job it will be very difficult to get another. There skill set isnt needed as much, look how long it took the Rover guys to find jobs and they was before the recession. Many of these people went to work there from school, probably have not got many qualifications relevant outside there current workplace.
Are you really saying a man of 50 after working 30 yrs and paying taxes isnt allowed during the time he is out of work to have a cheque sent to him to pay his landlord ? Is he that incapable - after all he has only worked for 30 yrs and ran a house and paid bills for that long too, but I suppose now he is out of work he cant even manage that hey ????
Quote by lyns
I'm basically with kent on this.
The real problem lies in the perception that people with property to rent must be "minted" and therefore can stand losing the rent money they are due from the tenants
Tenants' other priorities - like putting food on the table - then take over and once on the slippery slope of being able to get away with it, the landlord no longer features as important in their scheme of things.
But the fact is that landlords do play a very important role in all of this and are entitled to their rent. Removing the temptation by paying it direct is sensible.
So should my rent be paid to my landlord straight from my wages?.
If you default on your rent and the landlord gets the appropriate order, you could be paying your rent via an Attachment of Earnings order so yes, in effect, that could happen.
Sex God
Quote by fem_4_taboo
if you work its your choice what you spend your money on.
What about if you work and receive benefit?
i actually think benefit should not be cash at all.
I don't disagree with this.
you get a set amount for utilities, ensuring gas, electric, water is all provided and no child will be without. food vouchers are issued for food,not tobacco or alcohol.
Yep
if you dont like this get a job. in this country not paying your way grants you more rights than doing so.
i no doubt willbe flamed for this.
im not saying its easy to get a job, but you want respect and choices then earn that right.
This is far to dismissive...I know folk who have been looking for work down here for longer than 6 months. One is 21 and a hard worker who has applied and still is for a wide variety or work and the other is in his 40's and has applied for everything going. The first thing he gets asked when he calls anyone is how old he is :shock:
benefits should be for no longer than a 6 month safety net and then if you stillhave no job you help out in the community ,even if only for 3 hours a week.
Yes as long as it's paid thats fine...the 21 year old is already looking at doing this as there is already a similar scheme. He hates not working and sees this as a good way of keeping busy.
if you want the assistance of the state then i think its only fair that the tax payer knows the money for rent is spent on rent.
xx fem xx
I'm tired so will make it brief....
There are many folk out there that do work and work long hours but because of crcumstances beyond their control they still qualify for benefits. It's not always the no good layabout that receives them
and also lets bear in mind that they are still paying tax and therefore do contribute to the help they are receiving.xxxx
Sex God
Quote by Sexysmilingeyes
I really hope none of you are ever in a situation so bad you need to claim benefits .... that you never feel depressed and worthless because you cant find a job or because smug 'tax payers' lord it above you that they can have a choice, they want to know where every penny is spent because they work but you don't. Because although they may have worked for 30 odd years (paying tax) in the same job and have now been laid off are of an age that you are virtually unemployable.
Think on those of us fortunate enough to be working at the moment - I know many working at LDV, again filing for administration, not knowing if they have a job or will have one. But they know if they are out of a job it will be very difficult to get another. There skill set isnt needed as much, look how long it took the Rover guys to find jobs and they was before the recession. Many of these people went to work there from school, probably have not got many qualifications relevant outside there current workplace.
Are you really saying a man of 50 after working 30 yrs and paying taxes isnt allowed during the time he is out of work to have a cheque sent to him to pay his landlord ? Is he that incapable - after all he has only worked for 30 yrs and ran a house and paid bills for that long too, but I suppose now he is out of work he cant even manage that hey ????
:thumbup: I'm with ya!!!
Quote by GnV
I'm basically with kent on this.
The real problem lies in the perception that people with property to rent must be "minted" and therefore can stand losing the rent money they are due from the tenants
Tenants' other priorities - like putting food on the table - then take over and once on the slippery slope of being able to get away with it, the landlord no longer features as important in their scheme of things.
But the fact is that landlords do play a very important role in all of this and are entitled to their rent. Removing the temptation by paying it direct is sensible.
So should my rent be paid to my landlord straight from my wages?.
If you default on your rent and the landlord gets the appropriate order, you could be paying your rent via an Attachment of Earnings order so yes, in effect, that could happen.
That wasn't the question...
The temptation could be the same for those who work and pay their rent as those who are in reciept of housing benefit, some of whom will work and also contribute towards their rent. So should everyones rent/morgage be removed direct from their wages and be paid straight to their landlord/morgage provider?, no temptation for anyone then is there!.
The original question was those on benefits.
When you work it is YOUR money that you have earned. If you fail to pay your rent, then you are in the same boat as to being evicted.
When on benefits there is a bit of a difference in that the person receiving those benefits are being given that money, solely for the purpose of paying that rent.
Most lenders now prefere you to set up a direct debit payment. The people like BT and Eon actually penalise you for not doing that. They like to know the money is set up to come out automatically, which ain't no good of course if the money is not there when called upon.
I really cannot understand why anyone would not want the most important thing...their rent, to be paid direct. Or would some look on that as a personnel slur?
It is not that, just a guarantee that it will be paid. The subtle difference here that I can see is that the council are giving you the money to pay the rent. If only a small percentage of those people spend that money,instead of paying their rent, then why not take away the temptation at source?
When you work it is YOUR money that you have earned. If you fail to pay your rent, then you are in the same boat as to being evicted.
When on benefits there is a bit of a difference in that the person receiving those benefits are being given that money, solely for the purpose of paying that rent.
Most lenders now prefere you to set up a direct debit payment. The people like BT and Eon actually penalise you for not doing that. They like to know the money is set up to come out automatically, which ain't no good of course if the money is not there when called upon.
I really cannot understand why anyone would not want the most important thing...their rent, to be paid direct. Or would some look on that as a personnel slur?
It is not that, just a guarantee that it will be paid. The subtle difference here that I can see is that the council are giving you the money to pay the rent. If only a small percentage of those people spend that money,instead of paying their rent, then why not take away the temptation at source?
Quote by kentswingers777
When you work it is YOUR money that you have earned.
And after 20+ years working.......if I went on the dole it would be my money that I have paid in. Either way it is still my money.
Going back to the OP, I would tend to lean towards having it paid direct to the landlord. But there are exceptions as mentioned when it may not always be the best policy. Interesting thread this.
Dave_Notts
Quote by benrums0n
Kent at the risk of you thinking I'm picking on you can you explain the difference between earned income and benefits? I just cant see it.
Picking on me?
:lol: :lol: Do not know why you would possibly even think that. :shock: That is an easy question to answer...earned income is what people do when they get up for work and do an 8 hour plus day. If there was no difference, why the heck would people bother going to work??
Benefits is a source of income GIVEN to you, when you do not work. Some people of course get benefits of sorts IF they do not earn enough money, set out by law.
I have spent time out of work in the 80's, so I know what it is like to have to suffer the indignity of having to go to what was the Social security office, to fill out me income support forms.
I cannot really understand how anybody cannot see the difference between " earned income " and " benefit income ".
IF i was not working my income would be greatly reduced, as I work I can afford the nicer things in life. Nice holidays....a car and a nice motorcycle...a nice home....etc.
Material things maybe, but things that make my life much nicer.....that is what I work for....NOT because I love going to work!
If there really was no difference, then I would stay in bed until about 12, and then......
Quote by Dave__Notts
When you work it is YOUR money that you have earned.
And after 20+ years working.......if I went on the dole it would be my money that I have paid in. Either way it is still my money.
snip...
Dave_Notts
There's the difference Dave..
You may have "paid your stamp" but the money is no longer yours - you have absolutely no control over it.
Your (various) employers will have paid their supplement to "your stamp" too and that money is not yours either.
Technically. it's money paid in to a "social fund", the benefits of which are prescribed by law. It's not actually a condition of paying in to the fund to be entitled to payments from it.
Moreover, if you were limited to the amount you had actually paid in, the benefit wouldn't last as long as it might need to if you became long term unemployed.
A bit like insurance; I'm just about to pay 150€ for 12 months insurance on my 2CV6. If someone nicks it, or a tree falls on it, I sure as hell hope I'll get a lot more than the premium I've paid in for it!
More than that, I hope I never have to claim against it.
Sex God
I think there’s a big point being missed here.
I’ve been on both ends of the argument so I do feel sort of qualified to comment. I’ve earned so much money that I’ve literally been forced to use offshore accounts to stop this country’s robbing bastards taking it all away, and yes I worked f*****g hard for it, including putting my life on the line as a regular part of the job.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no aversion to paying my taxes, its what, at the end of the day, makes or breaks a country, but I do object to the highwayman , ………… oops sorry ……… tax man, taking over half of MY HARD EARNED MONEY that I found hard to sallow. I know I have a responsibility, but it does not include keeping the bloody chancellor funded single handledly.
Maybe if our elected (and that’s a joke but a different story) leaders did a better job of securing exports for our hard hit industries to generate the income needed, this whole argument would be academic.
I have also been at the other end of the scale, through no fault of anyone but my own I‘ll admit, I have been “long term unemployed†and let me tell you something, unless you’ve been there, you have absolutely no right to an opinion. Sorry, but that’s the way it is, Remember the old saying about don’t judge a man until you’ve walked in his shoes for an hour? Well try 5 years of the shit and you’ll really know wtf you’re talking about, until then, I suggest imagine your worst nightmare, then thank your lucky stars that its so much less that the reality.
Now, to the question of who gets what. Can someone please explain to me what the hell is so wrong with the great British of ‘means testing‘? I for one am quite happy to submit to it. If times are good, then I don’t need help, and that’s fine, I pay my way and everyone gets what’s owed to them. If times get hard, then of course I have to prove it. What’s wrong with that? I have no problem with giving my financial / living circumstances to whatever government body set up to decide what I am, and am not entitled to (oh and please take note of the word “entitled†I used it deliberately.
As for how it’s paid, I want all the benefit money that I may get to go to pay for what it’s meant for, so the rent goes to the landlord, that’s a no brainer, if all landlords were good and honest people, who would mind? Not me, all in favour of it. The problem there of course, and the real reason why the system is changing, is because there are now so many unscrupulous landlords who claim for 30, 40, 50+ non existent tenants and fiddling the system, that it has become untenable.
So, can anyone tell me the difference between these landlords, and a guy who does a bit of on the side work to supplement his handouts? O yeah, I forgot, he / she’s a property owner, a person of substance who works for a living, so therefore they must be a straight up pillar of the community ….. Yeah right :lol2:
I would have no problem with vouchers instead of cash, I do understand the argument about people not wanting others to know about their circumstances, but we live in an electronic age, how difficult would it be to produce credit / debit card type vouchers? Just a thought really, I had no shame when I was unemployed, I know I did my best at the time, I sent out over 1000 job applications a month during those 5 years and received on average 1 to 2 replies. Now that to my mind is f*****g disgraceful, no wonder some people get discouraged and give up. Ffs at least have the manners of a reply. When I was an employer I answered each and every job enquiry that came onto my desk.
It seems to me that it’s oh so easy to kick out at people when they’re down, maybe some of us, especially in the current financial climate should be thinking, there for the grace of god?
The way things are right now, I could almost guarantee that there isn’t a single person on this site whos income is guaranteed over the next 5 years, so rather than slagging folk off and having the usual ‘holier than thou’ attitude, it might be an idea to start thinking about what will be the best / fairest way to distribute the benefits that without doubt most of us will need before this is over, and how we are going to curb those who really are taking the p**s and avoiding paying billions of pounds in tax avoidance schemes.
As a last contribution, I will just ask the reader to take note of the time of posting, and the fact it’s the weekend :lol2:
Hello
to all those who have said hi since my return to the site / life, I’ve not forgotten my friends, just not been around that much to acknowledge them. 
God I’ve missed this place
:cheers:
I’ve been on both ends of the argument so I do feel sort of qualified to comment. I’ve earned so much money that I’ve literally been forced to use offshore accounts to stop this country’s robbing bastards taking it all away, and yes I worked f*****g hard for it, including putting my life on the line as a regular part of the job.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no aversion to paying my taxes, its what, at the end of the day, makes or breaks a country, but I do object to the highwayman , ………… oops sorry ……… tax man, taking over half of MY HARD EARNED MONEY that I found hard to sallow. I know I have a responsibility, but it does not include keeping the bloody chancellor funded single handledly.
Maybe if our elected (and that’s a joke but a different story) leaders did a better job of securing exports for our hard hit industries to generate the income needed, this whole argument would be academic.
I have also been at the other end of the scale, through no fault of anyone but my own I‘ll admit, I have been “long term unemployed†and let me tell you something, unless you’ve been there, you have absolutely no right to an opinion. Sorry, but that’s the way it is, Remember the old saying about don’t judge a man until you’ve walked in his shoes for an hour? Well try 5 years of the shit and you’ll really know wtf you’re talking about, until then, I suggest imagine your worst nightmare, then thank your lucky stars that its so much less that the reality.
Now, to the question of who gets what. Can someone please explain to me what the hell is so wrong with the great British of ‘means testing‘? I for one am quite happy to submit to it. If times are good, then I don’t need help, and that’s fine, I pay my way and everyone gets what’s owed to them. If times get hard, then of course I have to prove it. What’s wrong with that? I have no problem with giving my financial / living circumstances to whatever government body set up to decide what I am, and am not entitled to (oh and please take note of the word “entitled†I used it deliberately.
As for how it’s paid, I want all the benefit money that I may get to go to pay for what it’s meant for, so the rent goes to the landlord, that’s a no brainer, if all landlords were good and honest people, who would mind? Not me, all in favour of it. The problem there of course, and the real reason why the system is changing, is because there are now so many unscrupulous landlords who claim for 30, 40, 50+ non existent tenants and fiddling the system, that it has become untenable.
So, can anyone tell me the difference between these landlords, and a guy who does a bit of on the side work to supplement his handouts? O yeah, I forgot, he / she’s a property owner, a person of substance who works for a living, so therefore they must be a straight up pillar of the community ….. Yeah right :lol2:
I would have no problem with vouchers instead of cash, I do understand the argument about people not wanting others to know about their circumstances, but we live in an electronic age, how difficult would it be to produce credit / debit card type vouchers? Just a thought really, I had no shame when I was unemployed, I know I did my best at the time, I sent out over 1000 job applications a month during those 5 years and received on average 1 to 2 replies. Now that to my mind is f*****g disgraceful, no wonder some people get discouraged and give up. Ffs at least have the manners of a reply. When I was an employer I answered each and every job enquiry that came onto my desk.
It seems to me that it’s oh so easy to kick out at people when they’re down, maybe some of us, especially in the current financial climate should be thinking, there for the grace of god?
The way things are right now, I could almost guarantee that there isn’t a single person on this site whos income is guaranteed over the next 5 years, so rather than slagging folk off and having the usual ‘holier than thou’ attitude, it might be an idea to start thinking about what will be the best / fairest way to distribute the benefits that without doubt most of us will need before this is over, and how we are going to curb those who really are taking the p**s and avoiding paying billions of pounds in tax avoidance schemes.
As a last contribution, I will just ask the reader to take note of the time of posting, and the fact it’s the weekend :lol2:
Hello
to all those who have said hi since my return to the site / life, I’ve not forgotten my friends, just not been around that much to acknowledge them. God I’ve missed this place
:cheers:
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Good post Pete :thumbup:
Thank you :cheers: just shooting from the hip really, have seen a number of flaws since posting, not in the sentiments which i stick by, but in the way of putting points accross. I'm sure there will be plenty of defensive / counter posts to follow real soon
Which of course is what it's all about, let battle commence :twisted:
is it feeding time?
The way things are right now, I could almost guarantee that there isn’t a single person on this site whose income is guaranteed over the next 5 years
Especially public servants. Maggie emulation mode means that they are due a large cropping as soon as/if, the blue party get elected. Don't forget, she reduced the amount of public servants by nearly 50% over 5 years.
Since they have been replaced by now.......
Excellent post Pete I wish I had the abilty and balance to express myself so well.
I dont agree with tak avasion or evoidance on principle but I can understand your principles.
Kent, I still cant understand why people who receive their income from benefits should be treated any differently from people who dont. Thank you for your explanation of your reasoning though.
I dont agree with tak avasion or evoidance on principle but I can understand your principles.
Kent, I still cant understand why people who receive their income from benefits should be treated any differently from people who dont. Thank you for your explanation of your reasoning though.
Quote by benrums0n
Excellent post Pete I wish I had the abilty and balance to express myself so well.
I dont agree with tak avasion or evoidance on principle but I can understand your principles.
Kent, I still cant understand why people who receive their income from benefits should be treated any differently from people who dont. Thank you for your explanation of your reasoning though.
People who do not work, will most times think differently to people who do work.
Sex God
Pete 
and welcome back lovely.
Kenty I work full time and hard when I'm busy. Whilst doing this work there have been times when I have needed extra help because I work for myself and would'nt dream of giving up my business because the government and the banks can't manage theirs. If I'm out of work in the future I will think the same way as I think now...fairly and not dismissively
and welcome back lovely.Kenty I work full time and hard when I'm busy. Whilst doing this work there have been times when I have needed extra help because I work for myself and would'nt dream of giving up my business because the government and the banks can't manage theirs. If I'm out of work in the future I will think the same way as I think now...fairly and not dismissively
Quote by kentswingers777
What happens for example IF that very same person who needs affordable housing, gets a very nice home on the cheap. Then that same person gets a better job with more money. Do they give that home up and if not, why the heck should somebody on good money continue to get his rent cheaper than on the open market?
It is all well and good giving people these cheaper homes when they need them but.....circumstances change. There are no doubt many people getting cheaper rents through the affordable housing schemes, but earn a packet.
Is that not unfair? Or do we just give everybody a cheaper home? Think " home owners " may have a different take on this.
I'm stick my head above the parapet and admit that we're in this situation. We rent a local authority house, 3 bed, fairly decent size etc. We have just under half the rent that we would pay for a smaller 3 bed under private rent.
I only have my local authority house due to the incompetency of the benefits office. We had a private rent and when we had to go on benefits when Morbius was laid off (I was on maternity) it took the local authority 8 months to pay the rent and we got evicted! I paid less then, under private rent than the LA rent (FFS!) and when the rehoused us they made sure they paid themselves but still took 2 months to pay the ex-landlord!!
We have looked at moving back to private rent recently but would more than double our rent, increase our transport costs, have less garden and be out of the school catchment area. We've also spent a lot of money on this house, fitted kitchen, decorating, home improvements etc.
Do I feel guilty for having a decent income and being in social housing? Yes I do, however, I recently got made redundant so we've lost half our income, had we moved, we would be financially struggling right now.
Local housing authority rents are set at the "market rate", people buying to rent have pushed this market rate up in line with mortgages. I have no intention of moving house and lining the pockets of somebody else. In the meantime stretching my own budget to a limit, aware that should either of us be unable to work, we would have to uproot again, be at the whim of a landlord playing with the market, selling when they get fed up or risking the landlord not paying their mortgage and me loosing my home at no fault of my own?
Whilst I understand your sentiment Kent, this is my family's home, whilst it may belong to a local authority, the security it offers me as a home is far more important! I will stay here as long as we need that security or we are in a position to buy our own home.
If they mean's tested income and forced us to pay a higher rent then so be it. However, the security will still be there that if we are faced with a lesser income, we have a solution.
Callie
Master of Sex
I agree this means of payment will be a I first read about this 18months ago I thought then this will become a farce.A lot of people out their particulaly those on benefit and the elderly will be the worst off as those who cannot deal with their own finances bwill be dropped right in it,and those who would have other priorities in life will just spend the money on booze,drugs,et al..
Also a lot more people are likely to be evicted because they will get into debt as they use the rent money for something else. So much for this caring Government,the Ministers or MP's will not have a problem they can afford to keep 2 homes. The sooner this crowd of sharks go the better.I was a Labour voter,but not any more I am voting for that Lib Dem lot as the only guy who has his finger on the economy is that Vince Cable.
Also a lot more people are likely to be evicted because they will get into debt as they use the rent money for something else. So much for this caring Government,the Ministers or MP's will not have a problem they can afford to keep 2 homes. The sooner this crowd of sharks go the better.I was a Labour voter,but not any more I am voting for that Lib Dem lot as the only guy who has his finger on the economy is that Vince Cable.
Quote by benrums0n
Can somebody please please explain why being on benefits means you are unable tomanage your finances???????????????????????????
Where does this absoulutely moronic thinking process come from?
I cannot possibly answer that one but....it seems the people in the know seem to think it is more likely that someone on benefits who has their rent paid direct to them, seem to have more chance of not paying it. Now I am not a politician or a local councillor so I do not know. That is how I see their thinking on it.
Of course people not on benefits can not pay it either but this Government website advises about rent arrears, and it seems quite funny that the advice given seems to lean towards people either on low income or benefits.
Very little mention other that the ones I have mentioned above.
Quote by benrums0n
Kent the government say nothing about folkonbenefits finding managing their finances harder than those who arent. Neither does the web site link you posted. You and some other contributors to this thread have made that assertion and i would like to know why.
ben, I believe it comes simply from the notion that, when finances are under pressure, individuals will create their own priorities as to where the money will be spent.
Now, if a person is not on benefits and the money they have is their own to vote on as to which direction it goes, that is clearly is a matter for them. If they use what money they have for food, tobacco, alcohol whatever instead of paying their rent/mortgage/accommodation costs they alone must accept the consequences of their action.
If, however, they have been provided the money for rent from the public purse, they must not be allowed to divert that money to some other purpose. Temptation is a powerful emotion when your back is against the wall and the mind can conjure up all sorts of justifications for diverting the money elsewhere.
Removing that temptation by paying it direct to the landlord helps, rather than hinders the individual in managing their free cash, by which I mean the cash they have available on which they have the right to decide how to use - and therefore their affairs are managed more effectively.
That's the way I see it.
i work with people on benefit.
in cornwall its no longer going to be a choice if they want it paid to the landlord, it wont be a option.
now every person i have worked with in 7 years,and that over 800 have all said they do not want to recieve their HB direct.
in some situations the HB could be more than their benefit and they may well be tempted to dip into the HB payment.
christmas, birthdays, clothing, peer pressures, twatters of partners, risk of mucking up and bank charges eating into it, those are just some of the reasons the claiments have given.
if they get evicted due to non payment of rent the council will not do anything to help, even if they have children.
not all claiments feel its "their" money and think if the tax payers are paying then it should go direct to whats its ment for.
its a bollocks idea from the government nanny state who make up these rules for the people without consulting the people.
xx fem xx
in cornwall its no longer going to be a choice if they want it paid to the landlord, it wont be a option.
now every person i have worked with in 7 years,and that over 800 have all said they do not want to recieve their HB direct.
in some situations the HB could be more than their benefit and they may well be tempted to dip into the HB payment.
christmas, birthdays, clothing, peer pressures, twatters of partners, risk of mucking up and bank charges eating into it, those are just some of the reasons the claiments have given.
if they get evicted due to non payment of rent the council will not do anything to help, even if they have children.
not all claiments feel its "their" money and think if the tax payers are paying then it should go direct to whats its ment for.
its a bollocks idea from the government nanny state who make up these rules for the people without consulting the people.
xx fem xx
Sex God
*looks around....sighs loudly....walks away shaking head*
