Forum menu
Soooooo....
Is a cap essential to promote fairness or a tool for social engineering?
Odd one this, if you live in an area and need the money to pay the rent, fallen on hard times etc and need help to keep on living there ok. But how long should that help last if it means you can't afford to take a job? But should the tax payer be paying BTL mortgages? I can't afford to buy a house, i don't qualify for any benefits but i am expected to subsidise the lifestyle of others who don't work etc.
Maybe the government should look at reintroducing rent controls rather than targeting housing benefit in isolation.
Rent controls would be more sense but what is going to happen is unemployed are going to be forced out of their communities.
Say you are a family of 2 adults and 4 children between 8 and 16. Now there are various laws about overcrowding that states what number of bedrooms you must have I think in that case it will be 4 . Macx proposed rent for a 4 bed is £400 pw. Can you get a 4 bed rental in a decent area of london for that?
Ally this to the making of "social housing" rents to be 80% of market rent and yo might well find the position that people who are living in social housing fall foul of it
its just an incompetent poorly thought out idea that is a sop to the daily wail
I agree it is poorly thought out but...
I live in what could be regarded as a London burb a three bedroom house here would be around 1500-2000pm to rent.
The same house in Chelsea or somesuch more like 4k. Should the taxpayer pick up the bill for the extra or should that family move somewhere within their means?
Say you are a family of 2 adults and 4 children between 8 and 16. Now there are various laws about overcrowding that states what number of bedrooms you must have I think in that case it will be 4 . Macx proposed rent for a 4 bed is £400 pw. Can you get a 4 bed rental in a decent area of london for that?
Sooo... move to a cheaper area like a working person who couldn't afford to live there would have to do.
The unemployed/poor have been pushed out of Bentley ownership and luxury cruises as well, should the taxpeyer foot the bill for them to join in there too?
LHA cap is absolutely the right thing to do.
Biscuit Powered; come down to where I live, Tower Hamlets, and I'll show you the reality of such a policy, as you clearly have bugger all idea of how this will affect real people.
ive got four kids in a three bedroom ex council house, me and the mrs work full time and i cant afford to move , yet my lazy ass sister and her workshy husband also have 4 kids and a massive posh house on a private estate i could only dream of affording that is paid for by the council.
now something is wrong there dont you think?
(and yes we are catholic 😉
They should stick to the principle that you shouldn't be any better off on benefits than you would be working.
Still like all things a general statement is always going to be wrong form someone.
yawnits just an incompetent poorly thought out idea that is a sop to the daily wail
But as joolsburger says - even his house in the burbs would be unaffordable
So why should someone move out of the area they have lived in all their lives?
In expensive cities such as London or Edinburgh they will be forced out of the city and its suburbs completely.
There is hardly a single 4 bed property in Edinburgh that can be rented for $400 a week.
This is what happens when you sell of the council housing stock. No affordable housing. the answer is to build affordable housing. Much of the old council housing stock in Edinburgh has ended up in the hands of private landlords who charge 2 or 3 times as much in rent as the council do - even scandalously the council have had to contract out the housing of homeless people - to a company that owns much ex council housing and charges 5 - 10- times teh council rent for them
this will catch out working people as well.
I understand perfectly how the previous median rent allowance placed a floor under private rents and ratcheted said rents up year on year.
now something is wrong there dont you think?
Clearly. The local council obviously don't have adequate housing for your sister's family, which means they have to house them in privately owned housing, at a huge cost to their social housing budget.
This is what happens when you sell of the council housing stock. No affordable housing. the answer is to build affordable housing.
Agree completely, the entirely predictable end result of an ill thought through policy of buying votes back in the 80s
I understand perfectly how the previous median rent allowance placed a floor under private rents and ratcheted said rents up year on year.
You clearly don't understand how the property market works, that's obvious....
Forestarter - because the house you live in was sold off and the council forbidden to build any more means that they have to house people somewhere. Tehy have no cheap houses available to house people hence your sister and her family. Teh council have a statutory duty to house people and are not allowed to build houses.
[i]So why should someone move out of the area they have lived in all their lives?[/i]
Because they can't afford to continue living there.
The same as for the rest of us who don't have our housing paid for by state.
just seems wrong we work our knackers off to pay for things and they do **** all and get it on a plate
same goes for nursery / childcare tho tbh
+1 firestarter
same situation here only its my cousin.
I work they do sod all.
TJ - its about time some people got off there ass and struggled along side the rest of us to make a living.
If you reduce the demand though through reduced housing benefit, then surely rent costs will naturally follow. Or are there queues of employed people willing to pay these mental rent costs that will fill the void?
You clearly don't understand how the property market works, that's obvious....
Yeah, obviously... 🙄
This thread needs popcorn!!
Not a Tory by any stretch of the imagination, but the bottom line is the State are still prepared to pay a family £20k per annum (after tax in effect) for their housing.
Whichever way to look at it, if you qualify for anything close to the max, you are being very well looked after by the State. Many many people do not earn that Gross FFS.
If you need to upsticks and move to Wales then so be it.
I would happily support the idea of a transition period to help those who may fall on difficult times, but not into perpituity.
child benefit/more benefits should not increase after 2 children. If people want more children then THEY have to afford them, not everyone else that works
IanMunro - Member
So why should someone move out of the area they have lived in all their lives?Because they can't afford to continue living there.
The same as for the rest of us who don't have our housing paid for by state.
I was just about to post the very same.
TJ I don't know if you realise that London is about 40 miles across. There are suburbs and [I]suburbs[/]. A suburb close to, let's say Esher, is considerably more expensive than a suburb such as Hainault.
Ok - in Edinburgh there are almost no 4 bed properties available under the limit, So no one who is unemployed and had a family can live in Edinburgh or its suburbs any more?
Thii si what happens when you sell of the council houses. An ex councilk hous will be more than £400 a week rent
Or are there queues of employed people willing to pay these mental rent costs that will fill the void?
In Tower Hamlets (which has some of the highest demand for social housing/number of HB claimants in Britain), there is a queue, yes. Supply and demand means that rents here are amongst the highest in the UK. There is also some of the highest level of development of new properties too, but these tend to be mostly 1-2 bed flats.
De-regulated money lending led to people being able to get easy credit, which led to increased property prices which gives us our current situation.
Before Canary Wharf went up, no-one wanted to live here. So, there was a glut of cheap, available property. And, before the Right To Buy scheme, loads of social housing. The relative cost to the taxpayer was far lower.
So now, you have a situation where ex-council flats are being snapped up by those who can afford hem, yet a steadily decreasing level of social housing stock. Wonderful.
Imposing a HB cap will force people to move to less 'desirable' areas, leading to increased burden on the authorities in those areas, increased social and health problems, etc. So, we'll end up with ghettos in poorer areas where unemployment is rife.
Welcome to Big Society. We're all in it together, you know...
There is hardly a single 4 bed property in Edinburgh that can be rented for $400 a week.
Nuh-uh, TJ. [url= http://www.espc.com/renting/294990.html ]One of plenty[/url], and this one is £325/week with 5 bedrooms. In a pretty sweet bit of town.
Anyway, where's this £400/week figure from? That's more than most people will pay for their mortgage. How do the less financially-able/benefit-scrounging-scum get to have double my spending power when it comes to housing?
TJ - are you sure on that one?
So why should someone move out of the area they have lived in all their lives?
Because they can't afford to continue living there.
So, f- the idea of 'community', f- the idea of family, f- the idea of social cohesion, f- the idea of all people being entitled to a reasonable standard of living, and quality of life.
Oh yeah forgot- there's no such thing as Society. How silly of me. 🙄
I suppose there is an argument that says it's wrong for poorer workers to have to live out in the burbs because their is no affordable housing in London but the ever prevalent market forces are applicable. I don't want to live in Central London but if I did I couldn't without taking a massive lifestyle hit.
I don't know how housing benefit works do you only get the max if your skint or do you get it irrespective as a substitute for a council home? Can you top up the rent off your own back to live where you want to?
Welcome to Big Society. We're all in it together, you know...
but some get it for free and some have to work for it, bulbend 😉
tj they should then change the law re family size and bedrooms i manage with 4 kids in a 3 bed house as i have to , why shouldnt the sick,lame and lazy have to too ?
Relative to many other countries, this country (UK) is unbelievably good at looking after its needy; and we must remember that (and rightly so)
Just because people have become used to financial help, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't, or indeed shouldn't, be subject to re-evaluation.
Try being born and raised in Bangladesh, for instance, and moaning about housing benefit - see where that gets you.
Conclusion - we are very lucky, and count your blessings.
Here endeth...
i manage with 4 kids in a 3 bed house as i have to , why shouldnt the sick,lame and lazy have to too ?
Valid.
IanMunro - MemberSo why should someone move out of the area they have lived in all their lives?
Because they can't afford to continue living there.
The same as for the rest of us who don't have our housing paid for by state.
This. All of my friends (in the main - professionals, degree-educated, decent incomes) who've been having kids inevitably move further out because in order to get enough space to accommodate their families and get a 3+ bed house means compromising on location. You'd need a very decent income to get that inside zone 2, even zone 3. They put up with a long commute in order to provide that.
It's not just London - there are lots of places where younger generations are effectively priced out and in order to buy or rent anywhere with sufficient space for a young family means leaving the town they grew up in, living elsewhere and commuting in.
What gives someone who's housing is paid for by the state any more right to stay in the same place as one who works to pay for it?
There are a hell of a lot of people buy properties specifically to let them to people whose rent is paid for via council tax. Some of these people charge way above market value and are in effect scamming. Limiting the amount of housing benefit in these cases can only stop this scamming or profiteering.
CFH - because thats what the law says. There are statutory requirements for the amount of space people must have when housed by the state.
This was easy to do at an affordable price when the councils had a stock of housing. Now the councils have been forced to sellit off cheaply and not allowed to build houses to replace the sold off ones they have to go to the priovate sector to find houses to house peiople.
do you really want the workhouse back?
do you really want the workhouse back?
Ah yes, that line again. The Evil Tory Childsnatchers are going to force all the poor innocent little urchins up the chimmerneys, mister. Such stupid hyperbole does you no favours, TJ.
Just as it did when this twunt started waffling about the same; [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/10/21/sending-us-is-much-easier-to-this-fun-but-a-the-cuts-back-to-misery-of-workhouse-115875-22647950/#ixzz13Mn5pZf3 ]clicky[/url]
Champagne Socialist parachuted in to cushy seat. Historian my arse.
Oh yeah forgot- there's no such thing as Society
Of course there is such a thing as society. But you have to be a part of it, which means that if you can work, then you must work.
tj - well as they no longer have a big stock of housing perhaps this law should be relooked at
Holy Mary Mother of God, so people are ONLY going to be given up to £1,600 (per month!) of tax payers' money to spend on rent and not a penny more?
Won't somebody please think of the children?
All this talk of people having to move out of wealthy areas is bollocks. Move into cheaper accommodation or move somewhere you can afford to live.
I can't afford to live in Kensington and Chelsea, Alderley Edge or Sandbanks, so I don't.
I can't afford a BMW M5 either, but if somebody wants to give me £1,600 per month, I think I could make it happen.
TJ - I get your point but the headline is that a lot of counsil houses were sold off, i.e. past tense, it's been done and it's not reversible so we probably should move on from that point.
a lot of people , including me dont even get paid 400 a week let alone have it to spend on housing ;-(
Nice bit of social cleansing going here if some of you had your way.
lol i served 3 times in bosnia , now they had a ...
actually no they didnt lol
it's clever of the tories to allow the debate on benefit cuts to be focused on this narrow sideline of the maximum cap on local housing allowance at the minute. it's only ever going to affect people in london.
the vast majority of the benefit cuts will affect people throughout the uk and will hit the working poor as much as the indolent workshy scroungers everyone demonises. i mean cuts to tax credits, the lower cpi figure to calculate benefit increases, plus others
but to get back to the original point, people who work in crappy jobs in central london surely need to live somewhere close. these are people who get help from housing benefit to pay rent and who will have their housing benefit cut as well. how are they meant to get by? their wages won't go up, this is likely to force them to move and to give up their jobs
who's gonna wash the toilets? work in the shops? clean the offices? work as security guards?