Ethnic clensing by housing benefit

[Niteawk]

If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you think
of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make hundreds of
thousands of people homeless across the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-flight-suburbs

[Harry Stottle]

Post by Niteawk
If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you
think of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make hundreds
of thousands of people homeless across the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-flight-suburbs

There will be worse to come if the £140 per week pension for a single
person, (with no means testing), is adopted. At first glance this seems like
a good idea, until a Government spokesperson was asked where the money would
come from to finance it, and the reply was that as the pension would not be
means tested, the money saved from not having to operate the means tested
scheme would pay for any increase in pensions, again, sounds like a good
idea, until you look a little deeper. At present, most people on Pension
Credits get their Council Tax, and rent, or mortgage interest, paid, (which
is means tested), and this leaves them £132.60 to live on. If they are
scrapping the means testing to save money, does this mean that anyone now on
Pension Credits will just receive £140 per week? If this is the case, say
someone with a modest rent of £120 per week, and Council Tax of £20 per
week, will have absolutely nothing to live on, and if they stopped paying
their rent to buy food, they would end up being evicted.

[Robbie]

Post by Harry Stottle

Post by Niteawk
If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you
think of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make
hundreds of thousands of people homeless across the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-flight-suburbs

There will be worse to come if the £140 per week pension for a single
person, (with no means testing), is adopted. At first glance this seems
like a good idea, until a Government spokesperson was asked where the
money would come from to finance it, and the reply was that as the
pension would not be means tested, the money saved from not having to
operate the means tested scheme would pay for any increase in pensions,
again, sounds like a good idea, until you look a little deeper. At
present, most people on Pension Credits get their Council Tax, and rent,
or mortgage interest, paid, (which is means tested), and this leaves
them £132.60 to live on. If they are scrapping the means testing to save
money, does this mean that anyone now on Pension Credits will just
receive £140 per week? If this is the case, say someone with a modest
rent of £120 per week, and Council Tax of £20 per week, will have
absolutely nothing to live on, and if they stopped paying their rent to
buy food, they would end up being evicted.

They will still get HB and CTB so there will still be a need for a means
test though of course there will be less means testing as not everyone
who gets Pension Credit gets HB and / or CTB. The £140 pension
announcement was all about grabbing headlines and little thought seems
to have been given to the practical implications of implementing such a
change.

If the pension is paid at £140 some pensioners on Pension credit will
lose out as things stand - pensioners who are classed for pension credit
purposes as severely disabled (and therefore have a severe disability
addition included in their PC calculation) will lose out by £46.25 per
week and a pensioner who qualifies for an additional amount of PC for
being a carer will lose out by £42.65 per week. I can't imagine that
these losses will happen unless it really is Government policy to take
£46.25 a week from a severely ill pensioner on the poverty line in order
to give £140 a week to the wife of a millionaire who has never had to
work a day in her life.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Niteawk
If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you think
of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make hundreds of
thousands of people homeless across the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-fli...

Why would it make them homeless? Force them to move house, yes. Gosh,
just like happens every day with rented accomodation when landlord
decides to sell, fails to renew lease etc.
Last I looked there were houses for rent in London for under £400 a
week. Or for those who aren't working, no reason they have to stay in
London.

Its not as if there was a shortage of rentable accomodation for £400 a
week or less.

Or are you pitying those who must rent out the properties they own for
far more than housing benefit will pay in future simply to cover
mortgage costs?

Martin <><

[Niteawk]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2663c38d-7699-4d3b-86e7-***@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On 31 Oct, 11:04, "Niteawk" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:> If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you think> of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make hundreds of> thousands of people homeless across the country.>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-fli...Why would it make them homeless? Force them to move house, yes. Gosh,just like happens every day with rented accomodation when landlorddecides to sell, fails to renew lease etc.Last I looked there were houses for rent in London for under £400 aweek. Or for those who aren't working, no reason they have to stay inLondon.Its not as if there was a shortage of rentable accomodation for £400 aweek or less.Or are you pitying those who must rent out the properties they own forfar more than housing benefit will pay in future simply to covermortgage costs?Martin <><Only a moron like you would condone what the government is doing to the poor in this country.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Funny really, only a moron like me would see that this isn't making
people homeless.
Unless you include the people who own the properties that they
suddenly lose the tenants for, if the property is unincorporated in a
limited company.
That can lose the owner his/her house.

Read beyond the media headlines. Their purpose is to attract attention
to the story, not to tell the truth.

It will cause disruption, few would argue with that. Will it also save
the government money in housing benefit?

Its also funny how there wasn't this media storm about mortgage
interest paid by the DWP at any time.

Still, if you'd rather have your fantasy that the press is telling you
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then go ahead.

Martin <><

[Niteawk]

Funny really, only a moron like me would see that this isn't making
people homeless.
Unless you include the people who own the properties that they
suddenly lose the tenants for, if the property is unincorporated in a
limited company.
That can lose the owner his/her house.

Read beyond the media headlines. Their purpose is to attract attention
to the story, not to tell the truth.

It will cause disruption, few would argue with that. Will it also save
the government money in housing benefit?

Its also funny how there wasn't this media storm about mortgage
interest paid by the DWP at any time.

Still, if you'd rather have your fantasy that the press is telling you
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then go ahead.

Martin <><


The old conspiracy theory eh, good one that. Cameron is lying then when he says he is going to reduce HB.

Actually I am feeling the effects of Tory cuts already, only today I discovered that my local CAB lost their legal aid contract so no more help with appeals against their dodgy ESA medicals.

Shower of cunts the lot of them, tories that is, all MPs actually, they are all the same self serving money grabbing bastards.

[m***@hotmail.com]

  >
  Funny really, only a moron like me would see that this isn't making
  people homeless.
  Unless you include the people who own the properties that they
  suddenly lose the tenants for, if the property is unincorporated in a
  limited company.
  That can lose the owner his/her house.
  Read beyond the media headlines. Their purpose is to attract attention
  to the story, not to tell the truth.
  It will cause disruption, few would argue with that. Will it also save
  the government money in housing benefit?
  Its also funny how there wasn't this media storm about mortgage
  interest paid by the DWP at any time.
  Still, if you'd rather have your fantasy that the press is telling you
  the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then go ahead.
  Martin  <><
  The old conspiracy theory eh, good one that. Cameron is  lying then when he says he is going to reduce HB.
  Actually I am feeling the effects of Tory cuts already, only today I discovered that my local CAB lost their legal aid contract so no more help with appeals against their dodgy ESA medicals.
  Shower of cunts the lot of them, tories that is, all MPs actually, they are all the same self serving money grabbing bastards.

Not the first time a CAB has lost legal aid contract. Been happening
for a few years now.
Tends to be part of a tender process - and the existing service
provider doesn't always win.

I don't think Cameron is lying about reducing HB. Just nothing new
about people having to move house - and nothing to do with making them
homeless.
Thousands of bank repossessions each year force people to move house -
including tenants from rented property that is to be sold off. While
this is larger scale in small areas, the difference this time is that
someone is trying to placate the daily mail over its ongoing stories
about people on the dole living in high price houses on taxpayer
expense.
Maybe if the press weren't so much in favour of action, action
wouldn't have happened. Would the MPs and senior civil servants have
noticed that a few were living in high price houses if the media
didn't call attention to the problem???

Plenty of stuff the government is doing badly without Johnson calling
one thing 'ethnic cleansing' (as if he knew what that was), or the
media saying people would be made homeless.

Martin <><

[mogga]

Post by Niteawk
If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you think
of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make hundreds of
thousands of people homeless across the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-flight-suburbs

I don't want to pay 104k a year for the 50+ families on LHA in central
london.

We should have a two tier tax system if you feel it's a good idea and
then you can pay for it.

Housing benefit goes to the landlords not the tenants.
We currently pay out tons of money for families on benefits for them
to live in bigger and better houses than people with jobs. How's that
fair for working people?

LHA shouldhave lowered rents. It didn't, so something else needs to be
tried.

We should have been building more social housing providing lower
rents.

It's exactly the same argument as saying poor people don't own
ferraris and go to barbados on holiday. We don't pay for them to do
that, so why are we supporting them living in expensive houses?

[Niteawk]

Post by mogga

Post by Niteawk
If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you think
of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make hundreds of
thousands of people homeless across the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-flight-suburbs

I don't want to pay 104k a year for the 50+ families on LHA in central
london.
We should have a two tier tax system if you feel it's a good idea and
then you can pay for it.
Housing benefit goes to the landlords not the tenants.
We currently pay out tons of money for families on benefits for them
to live in bigger and better houses than people with jobs. How's that
fair for working people?

What do you mean "bigger and better houses" who the fuck makes this shit up.
Homeless people have to take what is available for rent, they are not living
on millionaires row, no private landlord who is in the business of making
money from rent is going to buy luxury apartments to let to the unemployed.

Post by mogga
LHA shouldhave lowered rents. It didn't, so something else needs to be
tried.
We should have been building more social housing providing lower
rents.
It's exactly the same argument as saying poor people don't own
ferraris and go to barbados on holiday. We don't pay for them to do
that, so why are we supporting them living in expensive houses?

This is bollocks, if people are living in expensive houses, it is only
because the housing market has been distorted by bent bankers giving people
100% mortgages that they cannot afford to pay, that and the fact we have no
more affordable social housing, which is what caused the price of property
to soar. Bank execs paid themselves massive bonuses for selling bent
mortgages, that is where all the money went, the greatest bank robbery in
history perpetuated by the government and bank executives.

So dont go blaming the poor for having to pay sky high rents to keep a roof
over their heads, blame the cunts that are running the country, they are the
ones who created this situation. The unemployed are not better off on the
dole, if they were, no fucker would work.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Niteawk

Post by mogga

Post by Niteawk
If you thought selling off council houses was bad enough. What do you think
of the idea to reduce HB to a level that is going to make hundreds of
thousands of people homeless across the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-fli...

I don't want to pay 104k a year for the 50+ families on LHA in central
london.
We should have a two tier tax system if you feel it's a good idea and
then you can pay for it.
Housing benefit goes to the landlords not the tenants.
We currently pay out tons of money for families on benefits for them
to live in bigger and better houses than people with jobs. How's that
fair for working people?

What do you mean "bigger and better houses" who the fuck makes this shit up.
Homeless people have to take what is available for rent, they are not living
on millionaires row, no private landlord who is in the business of making
money from rent is going to buy luxury apartments to let to the unemployed.

Post by mogga
LHA shouldhave lowered rents. It didn't, so something else needs to be
tried.
We should have been building more social housing providing lower
rents.
It's exactly the same argument as saying poor people don't own
ferraris and go to barbados on holiday. We don't pay for them to do
that, so why are we supporting them living in expensive houses?

This is bollocks, if people are living in expensive houses, it is only
because the housing market has been distorted by bent bankers giving people
100% mortgages that they cannot afford to pay, that and the fact we have no
more affordable social housing, which is what caused the price of property
to soar. Bank execs paid themselves massive bonuses for selling bent
mortgages, that is where all the money went, the greatest bank robbery in
history perpetuated by the government and bank executives.
So dont go blaming the poor for having to pay sky high rents to keep a roof
over their heads, blame the cunts that are running the country, they are the
ones who created this situation. The unemployed are not better off on the
dole, if they were, no fucker would work.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No, homeless people haven't had to take what is available for rent for
some time now, they get the same choice as others.
Though single homeless men under the age of 65 aren't exactly high
priority. And yes, many landlords do let to unemployed. Presumably
getting a lot of rent if the cap of £400 a week is going to cause the
family to have to move.
You'll tend to find some landlords prefer having a tenant where the
rent is paid than no tenant where no rent is paid but costs still
remain.
If landlords weren't renting to those claiming housing benefit then
there wouldn't be anyone affected by the cap. So which is it? Are
there people on benefits/low income the landlords are renting to for
more than the cap? Or are there no private landlords who rent out to
people on housing benefit for such sums at all?

You might want to take an economics course sometime. House price
increases in the past have had nothing at all to do with 100%
mortgages - what makes you think this one is down to the bankers? And
who forced people to take on 100% mortgages? They certainly weren't
common in 2000 - but house prices were shooting up even then.
Affordable social housing? Seems like an increase in registered social
landlords in the past 10 years - generally those are the ones with
affordable social housing. In my borough they purchased the entire
council stock, did them up and let them to people - slightly higher
cost than the council had done, vastly improved repair rate and
upgrades.

Did the people running the country create this situation? Or the
people of the country taking advantage of the situation they had?
I find your comment about how the unemployed are not better off on the
dole quite amusing considering your past comments regarding minimum
wage.

Martin <><

[Niteawk]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2a07c99c-6db7-4ce7-9ba4-***@n32g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Did the people running the country create this situation? Or the
people of the country taking advantage of the situation they had?
I find your comment about how the unemployed are not better off on the
dole quite amusing considering your past comments regarding minimum
wage.

Martin <><

________________________________________________
Surely you do not think it was the poor who caused the banks to collapse,
the cost of living to rise, the value of the pound to plummet, the war in
Iraq etc. You're not that big an idiot, are you? People who are paid minimum
wages have to claim HB etc, and yes it is down to the criminals who are
running the country.

If you get a MW job where you have to pay for public transport, you will be
worse off than on the dole, because there is no allowance made for
travelling costs in "the better off in work" calculation that the JC uses.
The way the JC work it out, you should be at least £10 pw better off, but
that only applies if the job is close enough for you to walk to work.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Did the people running the country create this situation? Or the
people of the country taking advantage of the situation they had?
I find your comment about how the unemployed are not better off on the
dole quite amusing considering your past comments regarding minimum
wage.
Martin  <><
________________________________________________
Surely you do not think it was the poor who caused the banks to collapse,
the cost of living to rise, the value of the pound to plummet, the war in
Iraq etc. You're not that big an idiot, are you? People who are paid minimum
wages have to claim HB etc, and yes it is down to the criminals who are
running the country.
If you get a MW job where you have to pay for public transport, you will be
worse off than on the dole, because there is no allowance made for
travelling costs in "the better off in work" calculation that the JC uses.
The way the JC work it out, you should be at least 10 pw better off, but
that only applies if the job is close enough for you to walk to work.

Cost of living tends to rise anyway. Common in most economies. It
tends to be the poor that drive the cost of living upwards - the poor
tend to be the ones demanding pay rises above inflation....
Banks collapsing was partly bad investment - not so much here as in
the US. Due to the nature of investments though, US banks with
problems meant our banks had problems. Thats the simple answer, it
gets a whole lot more complicated.
War in Iraq? That was a US president deciding to invade Iraq,
something his daddy never did and Britain never officially did in the
90s (though we tend to keep invading Iraq and Afghanistan). Britain
joined the US in the invasion, though our approaches to dealing with
the locals is quite different.
Blair put it to parliament to go to war and the vote was done -
exactly as it should be under our system of government. What? Did you
expect the government to ask you to decide whether to go to war?

Whatever gave you the idea that people who are paid MW need to claim
HB? Surely it depends on the rent and their income. Someone working 6
hours a week for MW and someone working 37 hours a week for MW are on
rather different net incomes. What about working tax credit?
Rent varies - maybe in your area its so high that those on MW need to
claim it. The company whose accounts I do every year (a property
company with several properties) has rent levels around average for
the area of each property. 3 bed house for £100 a week, 2 bed flat for
just under £70 a week. Not totally unaffordable for a single person,
more affordable for a working couple or houseshare.

MW and public transport? Costs vary - my local weekly bus pass is
about 2 hours a week at MW. Get a monthly pass and its under 1.5 hours
a week of MW. That covers travel to 3 local cities. For a slightly
more expensive monthly pass (2 hours at MW) I can travel much further
- about 2.5 hours travel time away from my house.
Can't offhand think of anyone I know who regularly uses public
transport who doesn't buy (or get given) some sort of pass.

Now what was that you said again?
"The unemployed are not better off on the
dole, if they were, no fucker would work."
And then you said - "If you get a MW job where you have to pay for
public transport, you will be

Post by m***@hotmail.com
worse off than on the dole"

So which is it? Are those being paid MW worse off than on the dole? Or
are the unemployed not better off on the dole?
As MW is paid to millions, and presumably some of them stay in the MW
jobs for a while, should you not tell them they are or aren't better
off?

Martin <><

[Niteawk]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:be4b346b-eef6-4d34-a35e-***@g7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
So which is it? Are those being paid MW worse off than on the dole? Or
are the unemployed not better off on the dole?
As MW is paid to millions, and presumably some of them stay in the MW
jobs for a while, should you not tell them they are or aren't better
off?

Martin <><

___________________________________________
You are not financially better off on the dole, likewise you are not
financially better off working for MW. Either way you are living in poverty,
there in no better off for people in either situation, so the likes of you
and the government can fuck off with their crazy ideas that somehow people
on the dole are better off than people who are working. Admittedly people on
the dole get to have a lie in, but thats all they get. Money wise both
groups are no better off.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
So which is it? Are those being paid MW worse off than on the dole? Or
are the unemployed not better off on the dole?
As MW is paid to millions, and presumably some of them stay in the MW
jobs for a while, should you not tell them they are or aren't better
off?
Martin  <><
___________________________________________
You are not financially better off on the dole, likewise you are not
financially better off working for MW. Either way you are living in poverty,
there in no better off for people in either situation, so the likes of you
and the government can fuck off with their crazy ideas that somehow people
on the dole are better off than people who are working. Admittedly people on
the dole get to have a lie in, but thats all they get. Money wise both
groups are no better off.

Living in poverty tends to be classed in western countries as living
below a certain income level. That income level in Britain is quite a
bit above unemployment payment rate.

You were the one to suggest that people on MW were worse off than on
the dole if they had to pay public transport. Though equally you could
include running a car in that too.
So are you now suggesting that working full time on MW and being on
the dole results in exactly the same standard of living? Thereby
contradicting your suggestions that one was better or worse off than
the other?
If so, alert the press, so that you can tell the millions of people
who get MW.

Or are you actually wrong and those on MW are doing it because they
are better off?

Just out of interest, what was the weekly increase in jobseekers
allowance this year and what was the weekly increase in wages for
someone working full time at MW this year?
Excluding tax credits of course.

Martin <><

[Niteawk]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d7a077a7-9bb7-4db7-9319-***@r4g2000prj.googlegroups.com...

Living in poverty tends to be classed in western countries as living
below a certain income level. That income level in Britain is quite a
bit above unemployment payment rate.

You were the one to suggest that people on MW were worse off than on
the dole if they had to pay public transport. Though equally you could
include running a car in that too.
So are you now suggesting that working full time on MW and being on
the dole results in exactly the same standard of living?
Martin <><

______________________________________________
Now you are acting like an idiot, I can't make it any clearer for you. As I
have already said, due to the extortionate costs of keeping a roof over your
head, the MW is no better than the dole. As to who is better off, that
depends on individual circumstances. If you can find a property for £40 a
week in London, then you will be better off working for MW, OTOH, if your
rent is in excess of £100 per week, (that will get you a single room in
London if you are lucky) clearly you will be just as well off financially on
the dole. Thanks to the powers that be and the better of in work calc, they
have decreed you can earn an extra £10 per week when working and claiming
benefit to supplement your income.

Actually I am not sure what the exact figures are at the moment. I remember
one job I was ordered to apply for, the wage was slightly above MW, they
worked out I would be £5 per week better off as I would not qualify for 100%
HB. I gave up on that idea when I found it would cost me £20 per week to get
to the job. Rules you see, they can't make you apply for jobs that leave you
worse off financially. I did offer a solution, pay for a second home and I
can walk to work.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Living in poverty tends to be classed in western countries as living
below a certain income level. That income level in Britain is quite a
bit above unemployment payment rate.
You were the one to suggest that people on MW were worse off than on
the dole if they had to pay public transport. Though equally you could
include running a car in that too.
So are you now suggesting that working full time on MW and being on
the dole results in exactly the same standard of living?
Martin  <><
______________________________________________
Now you are acting like an idiot, I can't make it any clearer for you. As I
have already said, due to the extortionate costs of keeping a roof over your
head, the MW is no better than the dole. As to who is better off, that
depends on individual circumstances. If you can find a property for £40 a
week in London, then you will be better off working for MW, OTOH, if your
rent is in excess of £100 per week, (that will get you a single room in
London if you are lucky) clearly you will be just as well off financially on
the dole. Thanks to the powers that be and the better of in work calc, they
have decreed you can earn an extra £10 per week when working and claiming
benefit to supplement your income.
Actually I am not sure what the exact figures are at the moment. I remember
one job I was ordered to apply for, the wage was slightly above MW, they
worked out I would be £5 per week better off as I would not qualify for 100%
HB. I gave up on that idea when I found it would cost me £20 per week to get
to the job. Rules you see, they can't make you apply for jobs that leave you
worse off financially. I did offer a solution, pay for a second home and I
can walk to work.

You were the one making suggestions about being better or worse off on
the dole or MW.
"The unemployed are not better off on the
dole, if they were, no fucker would work."
And then you said - "If you get a MW job where you have to pay for
public transport, you will be worse off than on the dole"

Yes, does depend on where you are and circumstances. A couple working
has a lot more money than an individual working. An employee can have
a higher hourly rate than a director (where minimum wage doesn't
apply). And housing costs in different parts of the country do vary.
£100 a week would certainly get you a flat around my area, or a house
in many of the local villages and towns.
My wife is currently working for 16p per hour above minimum wage while
on probation in her job (will be on more money when probation is
finished). If she was working full time at that wage, I wouldn't need
to work for my employer at all and we could stick the entire loan/
grant money from student finance in an ISA.
Despite a high heating bill and a mortgage, we could manage to live
solely on her money.

If you are an unskilled worker, most of the jobs you are able to do
will be MW. If you can't work where you live, why live there? London
isn't the only place in Britain.
Or you can of course stay where you are and remain with the hassles
from the government, the low income increases, and generally lower
standard of living that is a life on benefits.
Not all think the way you do.
Come north, still plenty of jobs around, our prices are similar while
our rents tend to be lower than London. And public transport can be
cheap, depending on area.

A small suggestion for you. If your circumstances are such that you
can never accept a job paying MW, change a circumstance.

Martin <><

[Niteawk]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64472077-c4bf-4a19-8c99-***@v20g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

You were the one making suggestions about being better or worse off on
the dole or MW.
circumstance.

Martin <><

__________________________________________________
No, I am merely ridiculing the idea that anyone is better off on MW or the
dole, you are the one asking stupid questions based on semantics.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You were the one making suggestions about being better or worse off on
the dole or MW.
circumstance.
Martin  <><
__________________________________________________
No, I am merely ridiculing the idea that anyone is better off on MW or the
dole, you are the one asking stupid questions based on semantics.

So are people worse off on MW if they have to pay public transport or
not? Are people better off not on the dole?
Or are you suggesting they provide exactly the same standard of
living?

Martin <><

[Niteawk]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:74e360be-c101-4701-b8b5-***@z22g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
So are people worse off on MW if they have to pay public transport or
not? Are people better off not on the dole?
Or are you suggesting they provide exactly the same standard of
living?

Martin <><

_______________________________________
Ask your MP, AFAIK they have been debating this in the house. Apparently
they do not like the idea of only being able to claim expenses for using
public transport to travel to their free second homes. They think they
should be able to claim expenses for using taxis as well. Then they can have
a choice you see, naturally they will use public transport when the press is
around, not wanting to miss a photo opportunity. But after 11.00pm they can
claim for taxis as usual.
So really they are only concerned about using public transport before
11.00pm. Its a hard life when you are only earning circa £100,000.00 pa
every penny counts.
I honestly do not know how they can survive on such low pay.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
So are people worse off on MW if they have to pay public transport or
not? Are people better off not on the dole?
Or are you suggesting they provide exactly the same standard of
living?
Martin  <><
_______________________________________
Ask your MP, AFAIK they have been debating this in the house. Apparently
they do not like the idea of only being able to claim expenses for using
public transport to travel to their free second homes. They think they
should be able to claim expenses for using taxis as well. Then they can have
a choice you see, naturally they will use public transport when the press is
around, not wanting to miss a photo opportunity. But after 11.00pm they can
claim for taxis as usual.
So really they are only concerned about using public transport before
11.00pm. Its a hard life when you are only earning circa £100,000.00 pa
every penny counts.
I honestly do not know how they can survive on such low pay.

And yet you and I and any other non-MP has to pay taxi fare out of the
cash we have, not expenses.
A simpler solution may be just to have no debates/official stuff after
9.30pm. That gives people time to catch public transport, or if they
just stay in the bar then they can damn well pay their own out of
hours costs.

Martin <><