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.
0
Comments
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
WHAT DO WE WANT? MORE MONEY FOR GRASPING LANDLORDS, WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!
Right on brothers (and sisters)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Charlton supporters don't drink Stella, wear trainers or support the BNP then?
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.....
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.
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....
I certainly hope not... :-)
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.
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...
Well they do, loads of them!