Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Housing benefit 'cuts'

Housing benefit will be 'capped' at £400 a WEEK, for claimants for a 4 bed house. How many people on here pay more than £1700 a month for their rent? Is this really an attack on the poor or on greedy landlords and tenants playing the system?

I would go for the latter as you would have to be earning a fair whack, or stupid, to pay that sort of rent in the first place.
«1

Comments

  • They said they don't want people on benefits being better off than people that work but on a low income. I agree. I know people that can't be bothered to wait on the council list and have gone private rented, one family in particular has 7 kids private rents a 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom, double garage, 1 acre garden, detactched house in Mottingham. They have no intention of ever working so they CAN afford it. It's free loaders like this which have made the cuts necessary, they'll probably have to move back to Thamesmead now and so they should!
  • I'm not in favour of giving money to freeloaders or landlords (is anybody?), but I wonder what how many claimants actually get more than 400 quid a week?

    One of my friends who suddenly found herself and three kids on benefits through no fault of her own found that her housing benefit was limited to 600 quid a month, leaving her to find the extra 150 a month to get an average house in an average area, rather than a flea pit in a not very safe area which was all that 600 would cover. I suspect that her experience is probably more representative of the experience of the lives of most people on benefits than some of the scrounger stories that get reported in the press.
  • edited October 2010
    perhaps if we hadn't sold off loads of social housing there wouldn't be such an issue?

    I think they should pay the full amount for people who have worked and earnt if for say 2 years - and it should be immediate not 9 months later or whatever it is now - after that, well it's tough I'm afraid,

    For those who have never worked (or after 2 years) it should be capped
  • When you get people like the Somalian who insisted on living in Hampstead and getting his huge rent paid for him whilst his wife and kids lived in a seperate house also on benefits, then something has to be done.

    Too many people in this country see the benefits system as a lifestyle choice rather than a safety net, this must be stopped.

    Why should hardworking tax payers subsidise the bone idle and the deceitful?
  • I read that story and my blood was boiling. I think it's completely fair that it's limited, although I'm concious of what SPA says about these stories being the exception.
  • Good comments razil, there should be a period of grace for those that have been working and paying taxes for a number of years. Sao paolo, I doubt that is correct tbh, she might be spinning you a yarn as having worked for the social for a number of years in the past, there is no way a mother and 3 kids would be capped at 150 a week, if that was the case why would the cap of 400 a week be proposed?
  • Another impact of the change would be to lower private rents in general. If private landlords were restricted on what they could glean out of the state for doleies they would also have to reduce rents generally. The possibly unintended but much welcomed result of this change would be to drive rents down for everyone. Maybe we would get to a more european state of affairs where renting would be a suitable option for most rather than a last resort. The rent v mortgage rates here are so skewed to mortgaging by housing benefit payments that renting is seen as a last resort. Whilst I am a buyer with a very low mortgage, for the future of my child(children soon) it can only be a good thing if cheaper rents without state intervention lead to lower buying costs for potential buyers in the future. Plus the daft amounts paid out to housing benefit claimants makes employment impossible as they could never afford that rent on their own.
    In future years I would hope the limits are gradually reduced. The only losers will be private landlords, or the land owning scum as the lefties call them. I struggle to see who could complain about that. Oh and a few people with no intention of ever working who we would not have to pay over the top for like we do now.
  • [cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Good comments razil, there should be a period of grace for those that have been working and paying taxes for a number of years. Sao paolo, I doubt that is correct tbh, she might be spinning you a yarn as having worked for the social for a number of years in the past, there is no way a mother and 3 kids would be capped at 150 a week, if that was the case why would the cap of 400 a week be proposed?

    when working out housing benefit for private properties most councils take the average price of the minimum required property size and will pay no more than that amount.
  • And you think that might be set at 150 a week for a woman with 3 kids do you?
  • [cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]perhaps if we hadn't sold off loads of social housing there wouldn't be such an issue?

    I think they should pay the full amount for people who have worked and earnt if for say 2 years - and it should be immediate not 9 months later or whatever it is now - after that, well it's tough I'm afraid,

    For those who have never worked (or after 2 years) it should be capped

    The point was to allow people the opportunity to own their own homes to stop generations of the same family continuing to be reliant ont he state.

    The failure of the idea was not the selling off of social housing, but the fact that local councils then did not re-invest the money they made into building new social housing. Opting instead to wipe out debts and give residents a concil tax break to ensure their continued vote.

    Sometimes, everything is not Thatcher's fault.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Not in their world DRF, everything can be blamed on Maggie. I still find it odd that they are now sticking up for greedy landlords that trap claimants in excessive rented accomodation they could never afford in work, whatever happened to their socialist principles? What incentive to work is there when they could never afford to stay where they currently live?

    WHAT DO WE WANT? MORE MONEY FOR GRASPING LANDLORDS, WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!

    Right on brothers (and sisters)
  • I understood they weren't allowed to reinvest it or is that wrong?

    Agree tho more housing should have been built, but that would be to allieviate the sell off policy, so whoever implemented the sell off at a big discount (Thatcher bribe) should have legislated to ensure the stock was replaced.

    :)
  • Don't think she was spinning me a yarn Steve, it was a fairly matter of fact conversation not a sympathy plea or anything. In the area I live in (outside of London), you can rent a three bedroom house for 600 quid a month (and that was what they said she needed for her plus her three kids), it would just have to be in a fairly scuzzy place. IIRC, the 600 quid is what the council deemed to be average market value. She made the call that she wanted to be in a better area, and one closer to where her kids were at school, hence having to top the money up.

    I do think the way the system works does disincentivise people from working as it's easy to end up no better (or worse off) than just sitting on your sofa all day. I know at least one family in that addicted-to-benefits sort of situation. I would definitely like to give them a big kick up the arse, but I can't say I envy them - OK they get their house paid for, but they don't see any of that money themselves - they still struggle to run a car, can't afford holidays, never have to cash to go out for a meal etc. I would like to see benefits being much more targeted as a temporary support while you're looking for work, similar to Razil's comments. I think they work like this in the US, where you get a certain % of your previous salary for 6 months, and then it's cut after that.
  • If you're looking for numbers I see Boris has gone mad on this and citing "Kosovo ethnic cleansing" and possible 82,000 households potentially evicted and moving to outer suburbs... simple cap NOT indexed makes complete sense but doing it overnight is mad from a social / political perspective... and tory MPs in outer London marginals a tad worried lol
  • Sao paolo, there used to be a % of income link to unemployment benefit as I recall from my early 80s days working for the social. It was stopped due to abuse and the benefits being linked more to need than whatever you could get away with. If we had a decent IT structure of our tax and benefits system then I agree it would be a better solution. We don't so we have to cap off claims from those playing the system. As you mentioned, these tend to be landlords, but surely you can see the impact of cutting them off at the pass would result in lower rents for all, and less people being trapped in rented accom that only the other taxpayers can afford. There should be some leeway in what is allowed for new claimants for a short period of time, to give them a chance to get back on their feet. But I saw enough fiddles in the early 80s to know that caps are needed to stop abuse. Though this was in Deptford, new cross and brockley, so probably only involved spanner fans, which we all know have special needs beyond the norm.

    I also know a few buy to let landlords that rake it in now by putting their rents up to the local LHA level each year to maximise profits. Last year the housing benefit bill grew by 15% to nearly £20bn, that is more than most govt departments. Does a 15% rent increase reflect current economic conditions or a piss take by landlords?
  • [cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]perhaps if we hadn't sold off loads of social housing there wouldn't be such an issue?

    I think they should pay the full amount for people who have worked and earnt if for say 2 years - and it should be immediate not 9 months later or whatever it is now - after that, well it's tough I'm afraid,

    For those who have never worked (or after 2 years) it should be capped

    The point was to allow people the opportunity to own their own homes to stop generations of the same family continuing to be reliant ont he state.

    The failure of the idea was not the selling off of social housing, but the fact that local councils then did not re-invest the money they made into building new social housing. Opting instead to wipe out debts and give residents a concil tax break to ensure their continued vote.

    Sometimes, everything is not Thatcher's fault.
    Councils weren't allowed to use the receipts of sales for building new social housing.In this case it was Thatcher's Governments fault, they wanted more home ownership and less social housing and that's what they got. This was to please their friends in the banks. It is only years after that sort of radical change that you see the effects, which imho are appalling.
  • [cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I understood they weren't allowed to reinvest it or is that wrong?

    Agree tho more housing should have been built, but that would be to allieviate the sell off policy, so whoever implemented the sell off at a big discount (Thatcher bribe) should have legislated to ensure the stock was replaced.

    :)


    That is 100% correct. The councils sold off their stock and were not allowed to reinvest the proceeds.
    I think it would have been a better policy to have given thoughs who wanted to buy their council house the discounted value of the house and told them to put that towards a deposit in the private sector.

    Anyway back on topic, this goverment like the last will not be able to implement the great ideas they all have or it will become a watered down version.
  • To be fair Steve, I don't think benefits of any sort should be available to the Spanners. They only spend them on Stella, trainers, and their BNP subs...

    If capping HB reduces rent for everybody else then great, but presumably that would depend upon the market conditions in a given area? I.e. if there are private tennants out there prepared to pay over 400 a week to live in a given property or location, then the landlords would just kick the council tennants out and get them in instead?
  • But most landlords of housing benefit tenants either know their tenants won't or can't move so tend to match the rents the LHA which in turn sets local rents. That is why a 15% increase has happened in a year. The reason the full impact has not been felt in private housing as a whole is that there are two markets running side by side. Those that will take claimants and those that will not. You see it in ads all the time. Private landlors attempt to justify it by the fact (it is a fact I agree) that private tenants are more likely to damage their property or be more difficult to evict. But the difference between the two markets is becoming more about landlords greed than tenants needs or costs.
  • [cite]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite]To be fair Steve, I don't think benefits of any sort should be available to the Spanners. They only spend them on Stella, trainers, and their BNP subs...

    Charlton supporters don't drink Stella, wear trainers or support the BNP then?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Personally it really annoys me to have people on full HB complain about the location, size etc. of the house they are living in and not contributing towards for the privilege. I've got nothing wrong with the idea of HB but tbh, beggars can't be choosers and if living in a less desirable part of town is the consequence of being on HB then imo, that's a good thing because it might make a few more people get up and work. There's plenty of jobs out there doing things like cleaning etc., it's just whether people are prepared to take them.....
  • I agree if you're talking about young people of working age allez... I'd say the system should put strong incentives for young people with no ties to relocate to where the jobs are.

    But about 25% people who claim HB are pensioners. Would you like to see your parents/grandparents forced to move to some ropey area where they're scared to leave the house?

    Also, it's a lot harder for people with kids of school age. In my friend's case, I think she had a perfectly reasonable desire not to have to take them out of the school they were in and not to see them living in a ropey house on a dodgy estate.
  • [cite]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite]I agree if you're talking about young people of working age allez... I'd say the system should put strong incentives for young people with no ties to relocate to where the jobs are.

    But about 25% people who claim HB are pensioners. Would you like to see your parents/grandparents forced to move to some ropey area where they're scared to leave the house?

    Also, it's a lot harder for people with kids of school age. In my friend's case, I think she had a perfectly reasonable desire not to have to take them out of the school they were in and not to see them living in a ropey house on a dodgy estate.

    Admittedly I'm a young, and naive 20-something but of those 25%, how many have been claiming HB for a large proportion of their lives? If they had been working all their lives they should have had a pension (either private or state), and imo whatever the age, people shouldn't be allowed to live off of the state indefinitely without contributing themselves. If that's the case then personally I think it is fair for them to 'move to some ropey area', otherwise what is the reward to other similarly aged individuals who throughout their life worked hard, paid their taxes etc.?

    It sounds tough and incredibly harsh, but I think everyone is in agreement that the Benefits system is in desperate need of reform, and that means that certain people, whatever their age, are going to have to change the quality of life they currently enjoy. There's no way of doing it whilst keeping everyone happy after all.....
  • Single person's state pension (after a lifetime of paying NI contributions) is 96 quid a week allez. Trying renting a flat on that. OK, trying renting a flat AND eating.

    I have no problem with the idea that we as a society should make young people get of their backsides and find themselves a job. I have no problem with taking away their benefits if they won't. I do draw the line at standing by and letting people who've worked hard and paid their dues their whole working lives die in poverty.
  • I agree that benefits need reforming to force those unwilling to work to put a bit more effort in the problem is with cuts all it will cost a huge amount to reform the system in a fair way that will focus the cuts on those that can either cope with them or those who are taking advantage. Those cuts will initially at least cost more than the savings, so the only way to do it is to cut indiscriminately which will cause, in all probablity, more problems to those in need than it will to those who are gaming the system.
  • edited October 2010
    Fair point SPA, I wasn't aware of the figures but if you have worked all your life paying NI contributions, I'd say there is a more than 90% chance that you have some money in the bank/pension or you own at least part of your house and could access that capital through downsizing. After all you'll be doing well to have no savings or capital after working for 40 odd years... If that's the case they'll be on partial HB at most, and do you really need it if that's the case?

    Slightly different issue, but my nan was put in a home and because she had worked and saved all her life, had to pay a ridiculous amount for the privilege, whilst the old boy next door got it all free after being a self confessed alcoholic for the last 20 years living off the state and not having a pot to piss in. To me that ain't right, and although you can't take it with you, that was the money she'd saved in order to provide for her family down the drain when she could have not bothered, lived beyond her means and had the state pick up the tab....
  • [cite]Posted By: D_F_T[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite]To be fair Steve, I don't think benefits of any sort should be available to the Spanners. They only spend them on Stella, trainers, and their BNP subs...

    Charlton supporters don't drink Stella, wear trainers or support the BNP then?

    I certainly hope not... :-)
  • [cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]Slightly different issue, but my nan was put in a home and because she had worked and saved all her life, had to pay a ridiculous amount for the privilege, whilst the old boy next door got it all free after being a self confessed alcoholic for the last 20 years living off the state and not having a pot to piss in. To me that ain't right, and although you can't take it with you, that was the money she'd saved in order to provide for her family down the drain when she could have not bothered, lived beyond her means and had the state pick up the tab....

    What's the conclusion from that? That the old boozer should have been left to drink and sleep in the nearest park while your nan poured her savings down the drain? Or that your nan should have received state support too thereby increasing the burden on the welfare system that needs reform as all seem agreed?

    I don't know the answer to this or the wider questions. I agree with those who say we have created a dependency culture and I hate the victim mentality that has taken hold in our society (taken hold everywhere - not just among the 'underclass'). On the other hand I also know that council housing has provided the foundation for many of us to better ourselves, whether directly or through the homes it gave our parents and the stable family life it enabled them to provide. It now looks like the drawbridge is being pulled up behind us with the proposal to charge near-market rents on future social housing while cutting back on housing benefit entitlement.

    Maybe these reforms are necessary however and maybe they will work. The one thing that does bug me though is how they are being sold to us. Picking off one section of society after another by portraying them as scroungers, fat cat public sector wage earners, do-nothing civil service jobs-worths, people freeloading on state pension plans, foreigners exploiting the system. Easy to do until you start looking at the individual stories (the ex-soldier living on the street, the care worker on or near minimum wage, the foreign national fleeing war and terror etc etc) - and until you find that the sections of society being scapegoated add up to more than half and start to include us or our family and friends.

    Still, the bankers are getting a bonus again this year so it's not all bad news.
  • edited October 2010
    Bank bonuses, now there's another faking own goal by the politicians...let's say for instance my bonus will be 100k...50per cent tax means straight away the govt will get 50k plus employers national insurance...then the other 50k mrs ltgtr will go and put into the retail economy thereby providing jobs and income tax ni from those people etc etc etc...so what does the govt do ?...it and the fsa says the bonus has to be spread over 5 years...so just when the govt is going to put half a million public sector workers out on their ears and expects the private sector to create jobs for them all it's going to get from my 100k bonus is 15k and a bit more ni...Pillocks the lot of them...

    And while I'm on the subject, the dimwits tighten up the numerous rules that banks have to comply with which basically now will stop a lot of lending and the tssers in Westminster tell the electorate that the banks have to lend more...it ain't going to happen and about the only good thing about the current situation is that house prices and rents are going to tumble...

    Right that's me wound up...fortress valley here I come...
  • [cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]
    [cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: D_F_T[/cite]
    [cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite]To be fair Steve, I don't think benefits of any sort should be available to the Spanners. They only spend them on Stella, trainers, and their BNP subs...

    Charlton supporters don't drink Stella, wear trainers or support the BNP then?

    I certainly hope not... :-)

    Well they do, loads of them!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!