Jump to content

Housing Benefit?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems the Gov are to save ?billions on HB, by capping payments. Opponents say, this will lead to an exodus of the poor from City Centres. Local Councils say they'll have to put them up in B&Bs, but if B&Bs are cheaper, why didn't they do that in the first place - or better still, why didn't the last Gov build enough social housing? :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Housing Benefit Cap

 

I don?t blame the people on benefit who claim this money, I blame the Council and Government who give it to them, nobody in their right mind would refuse this benefit to keep a roof over their/families head.

 

I agree that there should be a rental cap, hopefully this should reduce the rental on properties, bringing down the extortionate prices people/councils/tax payer pays to the private landlords and B&B?s.

 

Just look in the Warrington Guardian to see the difference between private and council rents. If you are a landlord, you must be rubbing your hands to think that you a guaranteed such an income.

 

Most of these rents are more than people?s wages and people who earn a modest income can not afford these rentals, going by what I heard on the radio (4) this morning, people who earn ?70,000+ can not afford to live in London because the rental is to high, so live many miles out of the city, yet, people on benefit do.

 

The rent alone is equal to the average wage, it would be cheaper to buy a property, but people can not save enough for a deposit, unless they win the lotto, very good salary or have wealthy parents.

 

For me, I would reduce the housing cap even further than what is proposed.

 

It all needs a rethink!

 

 

?250 per week for 1 bed property or ?13,000 per year

 

?290 per week for 2 bed property or ?15,080 per year

 

?340 per week for a 3 bed property or ?19,760 per year

 

?400 per week for a 4 bed property or ?20,800 per year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The caps are good in principle, but still set WAY to high.

 

Nearly ?1750 per MONTH for a 4 bed house????? A quick search on Rightmove shows at least a couple of dozen 4 bed houses available for less than half of that.

 

Bring the housing benefit cap down to a realisitic market rent and you'll drive down the rents being demanded by landlords, which in turn will mean that people who actually WORK for a living can afford somewhere decent.

 

BUT, as I've said in previous posts, go back to paying the housing benefit money direct to the landlord or agent so that it's guaranteed to be spent on paying the rent rather than down the off-licence or bookies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The caps are good in principle, but still set WAY to high.

 

Nearly ?1750 per MONTH for a 4 bed house????? A quick search on Rightmove shows at least a couple of dozen 4 bed houses available for less than half of that.

 

Bring the housing benefit cap down to a realisitic market rent and you'll drive down the rents being demanded by landlords, which in turn will mean that people who actually WORK for a living can afford somewhere decent.

 

BUT, as I've said in previous posts, go back to paying the housing benefit money direct to the landlord or agent so that it's guaranteed to be spent on paying the rent rather than down the off-licence or bookies.

 

I agree, I think we are singing from the same hymm sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main problems with the current system is that levels of housing benefit are based on current rents being asked for locally, across all standards of property.

 

But since housing benefit levels being paid out have a strong effect on the rents being asked it all ends up spiralling upwards.

 

Reducing housing benefit would force rents downward, which would benefit both the public purse and the ordinary working person trying to rent a home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Housing benefit, is this another phrase for subsidizing businesses so that they can give employee?s a lower wage or maybe if employers gave a decent wage, there would be no need for housing benefit?

 

Look at it from the employers perspective Sue..... if the employees worked harder instead of having fag breaks and sick days and too many holidays and bank holidays and half hour lunch breaks, the companies they work for may be able to make more money to take on more staff to reduce the need for housing benefit......

 

but you wouldn't ever see it like that would you? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Housing benefit, is this another phrase for subsidizing businesses so that they can give employee?s a lower wage or maybe if employers gave a decent wage, there would be no need for housing benefit?

 

Look at it from the employers perspective Sue..... if the employees worked harder instead of having fag breaks and sick days and too many holidays and bank holidays and half hour lunch breaks, the companies they work for may be able to make more money to take on more staff to reduce the need for housing benefit......

 

but you wouldn't ever see it like that would you? :wink:

 

Baz J.

There will always be skivers, it is up to business person to sack them and employ people who want to work, to benefit them selves and the company they work for, there is enough people on the dole who would jump at the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......maybe so, but do you know how hard it is to "sack" someone these days?

 

You can't just sack someone for being useless or lazy, you have to follow "proceedures" and even after following "proceedures" there is still the threat of being taken to a tribunal

 

There are a lot of people on the dole who would jump at the chance of working for British Airways as cabin crew, that would jump at the chance of working for London Underground or as firefighters....why do you think their employers don't just sack them for going on strike and costing money and possibly lives?

 

Because they can't.... simples!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was merely putting an opposite view of work to what Sue had depicted.

 

Not all employers are draconian or victorian mill owners. Many understand the need for good work life balance. Unfortunately there are still leftys like Sue out there who insist on using the "bad employers" banner as though it is a pre-requisite to owning a business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was merely putting an opposite view of work to what Sue had depicted.

 

Not all employers are draconian or victorian mill owners. Many understand the need for good work life balance. Unfortunately there are still leftys like Sue out there who insist on using the "bad employers" banner as though it is a pre-requisite to owning a business

 

Not true Baz J, you have misread my point of view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true Baz J, you have misread my point of view?

 

Housing benefit, is this another phrase for subsidizing businesses so that they can give employee?s a lower wage or maybe if employers gave a decent wage, there would be no need for housing benefit?

 

 

How so? you say quite clearly that you think it is the employers who should pay more money to employees to do away with housing benefit.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any system that chases the "market" price, inflates demand, which again inflates rental charges. It would have been far easier and cheaper in the long run, for the Gov to fund the aquisition (via CPOs if necessary), of City Centre Accomodation as Local Authority social housing where the HB would take the form of low or nil rents. Or arn't we allowed to think outside the box?! :roll::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true Baz J, you have misread my point of view?

 

Housing benefit, is this another phrase for subsidizing businesses so that they can give employee?s a lower wage or maybe if employers gave a decent wage, there would be no need for housing benefit?

 

 

How so? you say quite clearly that you think it is the employers who should pay more money to employees to do away with housing benefit.....

 

Government must take most of the blame by inventing ways of giving people free money, this would then I suppose would reduce the over inflated market economy, e.g. extortionate rents that landlords inflate for max profit, government should enforce a rent cap, or reverse the damage done by the conservatives in the 80?s allowing people to buy rented property from the council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...