Would you scalp George Osborne

W1

The Beginner wrote:

I think the new initiative to effectively (rather than Labours £2K/week ineffective one) cap housing benefit is a great move, although no doubt there will be a handful of specific cases that make it to the press where there is an issue.
Simon

Indeed, living off the state should never put you in a better position than working, whether that be cash in your pocket or a roof over your head.

Greg T

The tax system is used by the government to incentivise people to do stuff like save

ISA = tax free = save your money = go on save money
Pensions = offset you contributions against tax = save money = go on build up a pension
Cycling = cycle to work = tax free = go on ride a bike

and discencentivise

petrol = loads of duty = don't drive
Cigs = loads of duty = don't smoke
Death duty = loads of tax - don't die errr.......

So if you really want to get your hair shirt going you should not save anything in an ISA, pay your pension contributions after tax (and don't tell the tax man or else he'll re-code you against your will) drink and smoke and drive a car lots. Don't use cycle to work - you are taking money out of the government coffers.....

or

Just make a regular contribution, over and above your tax obligations to HM Government.

So....

Assuming that you don't, you are already playing by the rules and aligning your financials in a tax efficient way. You are "avoiding tax" like it or not.

DonDaddyD

Go on Greg,

Slap em across the face with money.... shouting....

"Save dagnabbit! The whole crisis was you're fault for spending and not saving in a Government agreed tax avoidance, tax efficient way!"

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

Go on Greg,

Slap em across the face with money.... shouting....

"Save dagnabbit! The whole crisis was you're fault for spending and not saving in a Government agreed tax avoidance, tax efficient way!"

Haha, I actually kind of agree with this. Far too much "blame the bankers" goes on, people need to take individual responsibility for spending money they didn't have like it was going out of fashion. Maybe that's what Dave means when he says "we're all in this together" (although I think he really means "you're all in this together").

UpTheWall

The Beginner wrote:

NGale wrote:

. All as bad as each other at the moment.

Or as good? The deficit is unsustainable, that is clear fact, no-one seems to dispute that, its how much you cut and from where is the only question, it's easy to complain about specific cuts but to do that in a reasoned manner, try telling me where you would cut it from instead, otherwise all you say is just hot air.

I think the new initiative to effectively (rather than Labours £2K/week ineffective one) cap housing benefit is a great move, although no doubt there will be a handful of specific cases that make it to the press where there is an issue.

Simon

I think you're missing a step there dude.

Reducing the structural deficit, i.e. difference between incomings and outgoing is good to do (though not always necessary in the short term), but there are different methods for closing the gap.

Spending cuts are one.

Another is stimulating the economy so that there are more incoming revenues.

Another is increacing incoming by raising taxes.

Cuts are not the only answer.

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

NGale wrote:

. All as bad as each other at the moment.

Or as good? The deficit is unsustainable, that is clear fact, no-one seems to dispute that, its how much you cut and from where is the only question, it's easy to complain about specific cuts but to do that in a reasoned manner, try telling me where you would cut it from instead, otherwise all you say is just hot air.

I think the new initiative to effectively (rather than Labours £2K/week ineffective one) cap housing benefit is a great move, although no doubt there will be a handful of specific cases that make it to the press where there is an issue.

Simon

I think you're missing a step there dude.

Reducing the structural deficit, i.e. difference between incomings and outgoing is good to do (though not always necessary in the short term), but there are different methods for closing the gap.

Spending cuts are one.

Another is stimulating the economy so that there are more incoming revenues.

Another is increacing incoming by raising taxes.

Cuts are not the only answer.

Not spending money is always more efficient than spending money, because you take out the costs of collection.

DonDaddyD

The Beginner wrote:

NGale wrote:

. All as bad as each other at the moment.

Or as good? The deficit is unsustainable, that is clear fact, no-one seems to dispute that, its how much you cut and from where is the only question, it's easy to complain about specific cuts but to do that in a reasoned manner, try telling me where you would cut it from instead, otherwise all you say is just hot air.

Thing is in all the spin the lines are getting blurred and it allows for some implausible justifications and things to go under the radar.

Unsustainability, deficit and economic growth are three seperate issues:

Unsustainable public sector.
In a lengthy conversation with the HR Director, he told me that he believed all along (13yrs ago) that Tony Blair's drive to increase the NHS services/workforce was unstainable. However, they were told to do it as part of a Government drive that couldn't be ignored.

The cuts in the public sector isn't about paying off the deficit, its about reducing immediate expenditure. It's like a Car manufacturer that reduces the workforce to increase profit margins. The work by the way still needs to be done and don't that less people will still be able to get the same amount of work done to the same level of quality across all services it won't happen everyone has a maximum capacity.


Paying back the deficit.
This is what bugs me, the Government used the deficit to justify public sector spending cuts. In reality the deficit will largely be paid off by taxes by people working and money generated by a strong economy, one that they've for the moment harmed as some private sector businesses thrive on providing services to the public sector.

Secondly they do not need to pay the deficit as quickly as they did. The brutal blunderbus approach has both sectors shell shocked and unwilling to react in a positive spend to encourage market growth way. The speed at which the Government is acting may do more damage than good.

Surviving the recession by stimulating growth in the economy.
For me this is the most important thing. The cuts did need to happen, I'm not disputing that. As of yet, the Coalition has yet to address what they are going to do to stimulate growth in the private sector. The private sector now needs to be large enough to provide jobs to those who will be out of work as well as reduce unemployment levels for those already out of work and who are likely to lose their benefits. Banks also need to start lending again and give mortgages. Money, large sums need to start circulating around the Country.

No one seems to have thought of this yet.

Right now the Public sector is unsustainable. In a few years we may be arguing that the Private sector cannot alone sustain the British economy.

Greg T

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right now the Public sector is unsustainable. In a few years we may be arguing that the Private sector cannot alone sustain the British economy.

Oh Go On Then.......

Do ye know where the treasure be buried?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Secondly they do not need to pay the deficit as quickly as they did. The brutal blunderbus approach has both sectors shell shocked and unwilling to react in a positive spend to encourage market growth way. The speed at which the Government is acting may do more damage than good.

I agree with much of what you say, but not this bit.

35 of the largest private sector companies wrote an open letter agreeing with the cuts.

And we're currently spending £120m A DAY on interest. The quicker this debt is paid off, the quicker this money wasted on interest can be saved too.

I hope that the long term consequences of the cuts is to reduce public sector spending, reduce taxes and thereby increase private spending and investment and encourage companies to come to the UK.

Greg T

DonDaddyD wrote:

Go on Greg,

Slap em across the face with money.... shouting....

"Save dagnabbit! The whole crisis was you're fault for spending and not saving in a Government agreed tax avoidance, tax efficient way!"

Nothing wrong with saving and spending

Borrowing and spending, repaying- OK

Borrowing at a better rate than your previous borrowing - OK....

Borrowing to fund interest payments on previous borrowing - you are boned.....

Stevo_666

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Bizarre, as I thought I had made it pretty clear - intended use fine, unitended use not. Basically - don't be a clever Dick.

Do you have any examples where you haven't structured your own affairs to be as tax efficient as possible? I.e. not taking advantage of every and all tax saving and mitigation?

How do you know what was "intended" by the law, if the law itself doesn't say so?

Making any large purchases before the VAT rise?

Undertaken any inheritance tax planning (or benefitted from others doing so)?

Bought any duty free booze?

Use C2W to buy a bike you don't commute on?

As I said earlier, the law itself needs to reflect the intentions behind it, unless you trawl Hansard for every decision you make to ensure that what you're doing is within the "spirit" of the law. How are you supposed to know what is "intended" by the law unless the law iteself makes that clear?

It seems very easy to castigate those who appear to pay less tax than you think they ought to, it's less easy to come up with examples where you pay more tax than you are obliged to yourself.....

Do you have any examples of these immoral typres where you would have not done what they (legally) did?

Sewinman seems to have gone a bit quiet as he suddenly realises that he's a moral reprobate and dodgy tax avoider

UpTheWall

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Secondly they do not need to pay the deficit as quickly as they did. The brutal blunderbus approach has both sectors shell shocked and unwilling to react in a positive spend to encourage market growth way. The speed at which the Government is acting may do more damage than good.

I agree with much of what you say, but not this bit.

35 of the largest private sector companies wrote an open letter agreeing with the cuts.

And we're currently spending £120m A DAY on interest. The quicker this debt is paid off, the quicker this money wasted on interest can be saved too.

I hope that the long term consequences of the cuts is to reduce public sector spending, reduce taxes and thereby increase private spending and investment and encourage companies to come to the UK.

And many more business men wrote letters to the contrary.

Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul wotsit disagreed. The FT disagree.

Even the IMF didn't think we needed to make such drastic cuts.

BEsides 120m a day is big compared to what most of us spend on bike kit, but it's not that much for a government.

Again, let's separate the long term debt the government has from the structural deficit (difference between annual incomings and outgoings).

The long term debt can be paid off in about 14 years, easily and affordably. In fact the bond market is a valuable part of the economy.

not that I agree with using the logical fallacy that is proof by analogy, buuuut... we all take on debt when we think it's worth out while; we take on mortgages which are much bigger than our annual income. Similarly companies spend more money than they have if they think it's good for the long term prospects of the company.

Likewise, a government can spend more money than it has when it thinks it needs to stimulate the economy, protect jobs, and indeed lives of it's citizens....

or protect from invasion (c.f. paying of the world war debt only last year).

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

I think the new initiative to effectively (rather than Labours £2K/week ineffective one) cap housing benefit is a great move, although no doubt there will be a handful of specific cases that make it to the press where there is an issue.
Simon

Indeed, living off the state should never put you in a better position than working, whether that be cash in your pocket or a roof over your head.

I can't disagree with the basic point, but I was surprised to see that the government by their own admission hadn't made any assessment of how many people would have to move out of central London as they could no longer afford the increased housing costs. Others have estimated some 80,000 households or around 200,000 people will have to move out of central London. Places like Westminster and Islington will become even more of a monoculture than they already are. They're already slightly strange places where you either have to be very poor or very rich to live.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Secondly they do not need to pay the deficit as quickly as they did. The brutal blunderbus approach has both sectors shell shocked and unwilling to react in a positive spend to encourage market growth way. The speed at which the Government is acting may do more damage than good.

I agree with much of what you say, but not this bit.

35 of the largest private sector companies wrote an open letter agreeing with the cuts.

And we're currently spending £120m A DAY on interest. The quicker this debt is paid off, the quicker this money wasted on interest can be saved too.

I hope that the long term consequences of the cuts is to reduce public sector spending, reduce taxes and thereby increase private spending and investment and encourage companies to come to the UK.

W1, I don't know what you do professionally but please settle down and settle in. You are just confusing yourself. Not least of which I think your reponse to what you've quoted doesn't even relate.

Allow me to unpick:

The speed at which the Government has issued these cuts, may not give enough time for the private sector to react. I.e. are there 500,000 private sector jobs ready for soon to be unemployed public sector workers in addition to the jobs ready for the unemployed who will also be looking for jobs due to losing their benefits?

If there isn't then that means more people unemployed. Unemployed people = bad. They don't generate money and this can lead to that mythical double dip Gordon was harping on about.

My interest in economic is this: I need there to be a proper lull, near bottom falling out and the banks in their desperation start lending like Storm Troopers "We'll give you £3,000 to take a mortgage with us". I then need all businesses to do this and subsequently it will get the unemployed and thrifty chancers out of their shell and taking risks again. Then we recover, then usher forths a goldern age and then when the Election comes round we'll vote Labour as we never truly forgave the Tories for the cuts, despite their saving the Country.

I need it to be 1995 again.

As it so happens David Cameron is today holding talks to encourage economic growth.

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Secondly they do not need to pay the deficit as quickly as they did. The brutal blunderbus approach has both sectors shell shocked and unwilling to react in a positive spend to encourage market growth way. The speed at which the Government is acting may do more damage than good.

I agree with much of what you say, but not this bit.

35 of the largest private sector companies wrote an open letter agreeing with the cuts.

And we're currently spending £120m A DAY on interest. The quicker this debt is paid off, the quicker this money wasted on interest can be saved too.

I hope that the long term consequences of the cuts is to reduce public sector spending, reduce taxes and thereby increase private spending and investment and encourage companies to come to the UK.

And many more business men wrote letters to the contrary.

Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul wotsit disagreed. The FT disagree.

Even the IMF didn't think we needed to make such drastic cuts.

BEsides 120m a day is big compared to what most of us spend on bike kit, but it's not that much for a government.

Again, let's separate the long term debt the government has from the structural deficit (difference between annual incomings and outgoings).

The long term debt can be paid off in about 14 years, easily and affordably. In fact the bond market is a valuable part of the economy.

not that I agree with using the logical fallacy that is proof by analogy, buuuut... we all take on debt when we think it's worth out while; we take on mortgages which are much bigger than our annual income. Similarly companies spend more money than they have if they think it's good for the long term prospects of the company.

Likewise, a government can spend more money than it has when it thinks it needs to stimulate the economy, protect jobs, and indeed lives of it's citizens....

or protect from invasion (c.f. paying of the world war debt only last year).

All true and good points, but the cuts are simply returning government spending to the norm - in other words cutting out the excess spending. For that reason alone, they shouldn't be delayed.

£120m is still a lot of money every single day to spend on interest alone.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

I can't disagree with the basic point, but I was surprised to see that the government by their own admission hadn't made any assessment of how many people would have to move out of central London as they could no longer afford the increased housing costs. Others have estimated some 80,000 households or around 200,000 people will have to move out of central London.

The fact they didn't bother to check strengthens the argument that the cuts were inpart ideologically driven.

It is also likely to see a rise in the number of squatters? What's the laws on this? If they've moved in I take it you can kick your own door down march in (kick the living daylights out of them) and throw them out?

Places like Westminster and Islington will become even more of a monoculture than they already are. They're already slightly strange places where you either have to be very poor or very rich to live.

I always wondered that. My two thoughts on people living in those areas, If they lok the part: "Feck me, you must do alright" and if they don't "How can you afford to live in a place around here". I'm sure have said the same of me in Wimbledon.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Bizarre, as I thought I had made it pretty clear - intended use fine, unitended use not. Basically - don't be a clever Dick.

Do you have any examples where you haven't structured your own affairs to be as tax efficient as possible? I.e. not taking advantage of every and all tax saving and mitigation?

How do you know what was "intended" by the law, if the law itself doesn't say so?

Making any large purchases before the VAT rise?

Undertaken any inheritance tax planning (or benefitted from others doing so)?

Bought any duty free booze?

Use C2W to buy a bike you don't commute on?

As I said earlier, the law itself needs to reflect the intentions behind it, unless you trawl Hansard for every decision you make to ensure that what you're doing is within the "spirit" of the law. How are you supposed to know what is "intended" by the law unless the law iteself makes that clear?

It seems very easy to castigate those who appear to pay less tax than you think they ought to, it's less easy to come up with examples where you pay more tax than you are obliged to yourself.....

Do you have any examples of these immoral typres where you would have not done what they (legally) did?

I pay PAYE. No, to all the other questions. People pay accountants to trawl through the tax law - thats what we have been talking about.

Th argument against the moral obligation is very self-serving. I doubt the world would be a very pleasant place if the moral vacuum was applied to all other walks of life.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

All true and good points, but the cuts are simply returning government spending to the norm - in other words cutting out the excess spending. For that reason alone, they shouldn't be delayed.

Well they should [be delayed] if the alternative: high level of unemployment and a private sector that cannot provide, runs the risk of another recession.

Why don't you get this....sheesh.

il_principe

SecretSam wrote:

W1 wrote:

Living off the state as a way of life (either on welfare or by having a non-job in the public sector) is completely unacceptable

I agree that there are probably a small proportion of people being supported by benefits who are genuine 'scroungers', although the vast majority would no doubt prefer the dignity of work if the economics of working were more supportive - eg if child care costs didn't wipe out the difference between working income and benefits. This is something that should have been addressed long ago.

This is a key point. I used to work with a girl who had sat down, done the sums and concluded that as a single mother of one, she would be finacially better off if she quit her job and went on benefits than by doing her 9-5 job. She decided not to quit, but many in her position would take the state payout. Quite how we ever got into a situation where this would be possible I don't know, but we have (or had, this was 4 years ago). Lunacy.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

All true and good points, but the cuts are simply returning government spending to the norm - in other words cutting out the excess spending. For that reason alone, they shouldn't be delayed.

Well they should [be delayed] if the alternative: high level of unemployment and a private sector that cannot provide, runs the risk of another recession.

Why don't you get this....sheesh.

The key word is "if".

So I "get it" I just don't agree that that is what is going to happen.

W1

Il Principe wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

W1 wrote:

Living off the state as a way of life (either on welfare or by having a non-job in the public sector) is completely unacceptable

I agree that there are probably a small proportion of people being supported by benefits who are genuine 'scroungers', although the vast majority would no doubt prefer the dignity of work if the economics of working were more supportive - eg if child care costs didn't wipe out the difference between working income and benefits. This is something that should have been addressed long ago.

This is a key point. I used to work with a girl who had sat down, done the sums and concluded that as a single mother of one, she would be finacially better off if she quit her job and went on benefits than by doing her 9-5 job. She decided not to quit, but many in her position would take the state payout. Quite how we ever got into a situation where this would be possible I don't know, but we have (or had, this was 4 years ago). Lunacy.

Indeed. It's easy to hate the players, but it's the game that's at fault. It should always be better to work. The state is a safety-net, not a lifestye choice.

Cafewanda

Il Principe wrote:

[This is a key point. I used to work with a girl who had sat down, done the sums and concluded that as a single mother of one, she would be finacially better off if she quit her job and went on benefits than by doing her 9-5 job. She decided not to quit, but many in her position would take the state payout. Quite how we ever got into a situation where this would be possible I don't know, but we have (or had, this was 4 years ago). Lunacy.

This was the same situation with one of my close friends just under 20 years ago, but she had 3 kids and was determined to show them that working was better than not working. She struggled for quite a number of years and whilst she'll never be able to buy property, her kids have the same work ethic. Thankfully.

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

As for the bile and venom spewing out over this, I find it pretty funny. There a lot of people on the left who just hate the Tories with an irrationality defies understanding. Most memorable was one Polly Toynbee, who after coalition was announced, was stotting with rage on TV, because (oh, how I laughed) she had propounded tactical voting to keep the Tories out. Hahahahaaahhaha!

One more time.

Hahahahaaahhaha!

HA!

Bloody Polly Toynbee - absolutely the worst kind of champagne socialist.

Sewinman

Cafewanda wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

[This is a key point. I used to work with a girl who had sat down, done the sums and concluded that as a single mother of one, she would be finacially better off if she quit her job and went on benefits than by doing her 9-5 job. She decided not to quit, but many in her position would take the state payout. Quite how we ever got into a situation where this would be possible I don't know, but we have (or had, this was 4 years ago). Lunacy.

This was the same situation with one of my close friends just under 20 years ago, but she had 3 kids and was determined to show them that working was better than not working. She struggled for quite a number of years and whilst she'll never be able to buy property, her kids have the same work ethic. Thankfully.

Does that suggest the State was/is too generous, or that her employer chose not to pay her a living wage. Two sides to every coin...

il_principe

Cafewanda wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

[This is a key point. I used to work with a girl who had sat down, done the sums and concluded that as a single mother of one, she would be finacially better off if she quit her job and went on benefits than by doing her 9-5 job. She decided not to quit, but many in her position would take the state payout. Quite how we ever got into a situation where this would be possible I don't know, but we have (or had, this was 4 years ago). Lunacy.

This was the same situation with one of my close friends just under 20 years ago, but she had 3 kids and was determined to show them that working was better than not working. She struggled for quite a number of years and whilst she'll never be able to buy property, her kids have the same work ethic. Thankfully.

Pity there aren't more people like this.

il_principe

Sewinman wrote:

Cafewanda wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

[This is a key point. I used to work with a girl who had sat down, done the sums and concluded that as a single mother of one, she would be finacially better off if she quit her job and went on benefits than by doing her 9-5 job. She decided not to quit, but many in her position would take the state payout. Quite how we ever got into a situation where this would be possible I don't know, but we have (or had, this was 4 years ago). Lunacy.

This was the same situation with one of my close friends just under 20 years ago, but she had 3 kids and was determined to show them that working was better than not working. She struggled for quite a number of years and whilst she'll never be able to buy property, her kids have the same work ethic. Thankfully.

Does that suggest the State was/is too generous, or that her employer chose not to pay her a living wage. Two sides to every coin...

She was earning decent enough money, and enjoyed her job, but then she had a pretty awesome manager...

davmaggs

rjsterry wrote:

I can't disagree with the basic point, but I was surprised to see that the government by their own admission hadn't made any assessment of how many people would have to move out of central London as they could no longer afford the increased housing costs. Others have estimated some 80,000 households or around 200,000 people will have to move out of central London. Places like Westminster and Islington will become even more of a monoculture than they already are. They're already slightly strange places where you either have to be very poor or very rich to live.

I've seen a few commentators in the Guardian and places sound off about this in some kind of reactionary complaint.

Can I ask how it is right that working people struggling to get by have been shunted off to zone 6 (by economics) and have to spent hours a week crammed on trains at considerable cost, but that they should be be forced by law to hand over a large amount of their earnings to fund other people to live in prime locations.

What you seem to be saying is that we should keep a pool of poor people in locations in order to ensure some kind of diversity. Working people have already been 'forced' out, so what makes those on benefits or rent controlled homes special?

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I can't disagree with the basic point, but I was surprised to see that the government by their own admission hadn't made any assessment of how many people would have to move out of central London as they could no longer afford the increased housing costs. Others have estimated some 80,000 households or around 200,000 people will have to move out of central London. Places like Westminster and Islington will become even more of a monoculture than they already are. They're already slightly strange places where you either have to be very poor or very rich to live.

I've seen a few commentators in the Guardian and places sound off about this in some kind of reactionary complaint.

Can I ask how it is right that working people struggling to get by have been shunted off to zone 6 (by economics) and have to spent hours a week crammed on trains at considerable cost, but that they should be be forced by law to hand over a large amount of their earnings to fund other people to live in prime locations.

What you seem to be saying is that we should keep a pool of poor people in locations in order to ensure some kind of diversity. Working people have already been 'forced' out, so what makes those on benefits or rent controlled homes special?

That kind of begrudging logic doesn't get anyone anywhere.

No one is saying that rising costs forcing working people to live further away from the City is right.

But equally it isn't necessarily right that those who were being supported have suddenly had their lives turned upside down.

The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Is it right, for example, that a Soldier who fought to preserve you're ability to live in zone 6 and who cannot work full time, due to any number of physical or mental disabilities is being forced out of the city and his home?

Who has the greater plausible and justifiable argument, where do you draw the line. The simple fact is. In both cases it is unfortunate and no one is or has more right than the other.

Or are we to become a bunch of self serving w*nkers who only care about ourselves and what we can gain at the expense of others.

Vote DDD

davmaggs

But working people who can't afford to buy and who use their own wages to privately rent have to move as their circumstances change or prices shift. Those people have already left many areas. Their lives are "turned upside down" regularly (e.g as leases expire), but as they pay tax then somehow it counts less than being poor.

The housing bill has risen hugely to a massive level and to meet it you have to tax others*. And the more that bill rises the more you have to take off those who aren't on benefits. Why is it OK for tax payers who rent or pay a mortgage to have to change location to find work or to reduce their costs, but those on benefits can stay frozen in time?

It isn't about "a bunch of self serving w*nkers who only care about ourselves and what we can gain at the expense of others", but saying that it cannot be right to keep raising more and more taxes on on working people indefinitely to fund prime living locations that they could never access.

Also there has to be some recognition that an unlimited level for benefit rents means that price inflation will be affected and that means that low paid workers cannot compete.

*even if we build lots of houses they aren't making any more of zone 1 or 2.

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

But working people who can't afford to buy and who use their own wages to privately rent have to move as their circumstances change or prices shift.
Those people have already left many areas. Their lives are "turned upside down" regularly (e.g as leases expire), but as they pay tax then somehow it counts less than being poor.

The housing bill has risen hugely to a massive level and to meet it you have to tax others*. And the more that bill rises the more you have to take off those who aren't on benefits. Why is it OK for tax payers who rent or pay a mortgage to have to change location to find work or to reduce their costs, but those on benefits can stay frozen in time?

It isn't about "a bunch of self serving w*nkers who only care about ourselves and what we can gain at the expense of others", but saying that it cannot be right to keep raising more and more taxes on on working people indefinitely to fund prime living locations that they could never access.

Also there has to be some recognition that an unlimited level for benefit rents means that price inflation will be affected and that means that low paid workers cannot compete.

*even if we build lots of houses they aren't making any more of zone 1 or 2.

Do you honestly think that reducing the housing benefits will suddenly enable more people to afford homes within zone 6? Do you think that reducing the housing benefits is going to reduce the amount of tax you pay? It doesn't and it isn't. So the fact they are now forced to live outside of London, from a home most wouldn't be able to afford anyway, means little except they're likely to be made you're outer zone 6 neighbour.

You seem to misunderstand what I said in the previous post.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, they aren't even directly comparable*. It is not their (a person living in Central London) fault that you cannot afford to live in, say, zone 3.

It isn't right that esculating costs are pushing people further away from the City and in turn costing them more transport.

Equally it isn't right that people receiving housing benefits had the system changed without full and proper consideration of how said change will affect their lives.

*The cost of tax that contributes to housing benefit is not the sole reason why working people cannot afford to live within zone6. The people receiving said benefits should not be blammed for this.

I'm getting sick of the finger pointing.