The great divide: Housing benefit cap, where do you stand?

jzed

notsoblue wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

I support the new limits.

I've recently been looking to rent a house in surburbs in a nice area and the new cap would more than cover it. The idea that the 'poor' would be sent off to Siberia is absolute nonsense and shown to be so by spending ten minutes looking at rental prices online.

The idea that the rest of us need to move to follow work, better ourselves or adapt to our incomes whilst others are exempt seems foolish. Add in the fact that unlimited amounts of cash in usual economic situations means that price inflation goes up means that rents are probably articially high in many cases and are probably forcing out other low paid workers who can't game the system.

I suspect that this cap is part of a long term plan to start changing behaviour so whilst I'm sure that the media will find some sad tales we will also start to see benefits in the medium term.

I don't understand where this prejudice comes from, why is it people think that those who claim housing benefit do not work to better themselves?

I think everybody recognises not everybody on benefits is a dole dosser. The fact is there are too many people milking the system (take the 84% of people from the district of my home town) and the media pick these up and highlight them, and the rest of us get discontent with the system.

davmaggs

notsoblue wrote:

I don't understand where this prejudice comes from, why is it people think that those who claim housing benefit do not work to better themselves?

It comes from the context of the debate, not the issue of needing housing. The context being that many believe that there should be no limit on claims, no matter what it costs others.

If you are healthy and need more that £400 a week for housing then you are not bettering yourself, you are using taxpayers money to support a lifestyle choice.

TheStone

notsoblue wrote:

I don't understand where this prejudice comes from, why is it people think that those who claim housing benefit do not work to better themselves?

This in itself is part of the problem. If someone is working, they shouldn't need subsidised housing. Either:
- we're not paying people enough
- we're taxing people too much
- housing costs are too expensive
- ... all of the above.

Whichever way you look at it, the govt is really subsidising companies that don't pay enough and landlords who are charging too much.

It's difficult to achieve now (as we're so far entangled in this mess), but moving back to a free market* could possibly correct some of this.

* that doesn't mean the end of housing benefit as they'll always be people who can't work or can't find work.

daviesee

MonkeyMonster wrote:

We [anyone] *could* run a poll of where you [readers] are located but I'd put money on the majority (by quite a margin) in london and likely so would most people...

I would put money on most readers being outside London but London having by far more readers than any other single location. That's where statistics can be manipulated to say what you want. Papers rely on it :roll:

DonDaddyD

TheStone wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I don't understand where this prejudice comes from, why is it people think that those who claim housing benefit do not work to better themselves?

This in itself is part of the problem. If someone is working, they shouldn't need subsidised housing. Either:
- we're not paying people enough
- we're taxing people too much
- housing costs are too expensive
- ... all of the above.

Whichever way you look at it, the govt is really subsidising companies that don't pay enough and landlords who are charging too much.

It's difficult to achieve now (as we're so far entangled in this mess), but moving back to a free market* could possibly correct some of this.

* that doesn't mean the end of housing benefit as they'll always be people who can't work or can't find work.

I have wondered how people in work get housing benefits that allow them to live in places like Westminister, Kensignton or my personally favourite, just off Gray's Inn road.]

What is the requirement to be eligible for said benefit?

MonkeyMonster

daviesee wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

We [anyone] *could* run a poll of where you [readers] are located but I'd put money on the majority (by quite a margin) in london and likely so would most people...

I would put money on most readers being outside London but London having by far more readers than any other single location. That's where statistics can be manipulated to say what you want. Papers rely on it :roll:

Now by readers are we talking about people who just read or those who contribute too... My usage was for those who contribute.

hatbeard

JZed wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

I support the new limits.

I've recently been looking to rent a house in surburbs in a nice area and the new cap would more than cover it. The idea that the 'poor' would be sent off to Siberia is absolute nonsense and shown to be so by spending ten minutes looking at rental prices online.

The idea that the rest of us need to move to follow work, better ourselves or adapt to our incomes whilst others are exempt seems foolish. Add in the fact that unlimited amounts of cash in usual economic situations means that price inflation goes up means that rents are probably articially high in many cases and are probably forcing out other low paid workers who can't game the system.

I suspect that this cap is part of a long term plan to start changing behaviour so whilst I'm sure that the media will find some sad tales we will also start to see benefits in the medium term.

I don't understand where this prejudice comes from, why is it people think that those who claim housing benefit do not work to better themselves?

I think everybody recognises not everybody on benefits is a dole dosser. The fact is there are too many people milking the system (take the 84% of people from the district of my home town) and the media pick these up and highlight them, and the rest of us get discontent with the system.

the trouble is the media likes to tar entire groups of people with nice broad brush strokes because hatred/righteous indignation sells papers and in recent years they've been so rabi/vitriolic about the handful of cases where the system has been well and truly abused that all of a sudden everyone on benefits is being demonised so that when a goverment that hates it's poor people comes in to power they've got all the ammunition and public backing to introduce whatever sweeping cuts/caps they like without really thinking too much about how it will affect the people who genuinely rely on that support being there to help them maintain a similiar standard of living to the rest of the people in this country.

Clever Pun

you don't need to live in 'central' london there is a very viable transport infrastructure to allow you to live in an affordable area.

can't afford to pay rent is balls imo.. can't be bothered to travel an hour to get to work is much more the case

W1

hatbeard wrote:

the trouble is the media likes to tar entire groups of people with nice broad brush strokes because hatred/righteous indignation sells papers and in recent years they've been so rabi/vitriolic about the handful of cases where the system has been well and truly abused that all of a sudden everyone on benefits is being demonised so that when a goverment that hates it's poor people comes in to power they've got all the ammunition and public backing to introduce whatever sweeping cuts/caps they like without really thinking too much about how it will affect the people who genuinely rely on that support being there to help them maintain a similiar standard of living to the rest of the people in this country.

...and breathe.

In fact, have some more.....

The question is - why is the government (and hence the tax payer) helping people to have a similar standard of living "to the rest of the people in this country"? We're not a communist state (yet), and the welfare state should be a safety net for those at the very bottom, not a lifestyle choice.

I'd also be interested to know how I get a free house in Westminster? It would reduce the commute but apart from that it sounds lovely.

W1

Clever Pun wrote:

you don't need to live in 'central' london there is a very viable transport infrastructure to allow you to live in an affordable area.

can't afford to pay rent is balls imo.. can't be bothered to travel an hour to get to work is much more the case

But if you tell them to get a bike or get on a bus apparently it makes you a facist.

notsoblue

JZed wrote:

I think everybody recognises not everybody on benefits is a dole dosser. The fact is there are too many people milking the system (take the 84% of people from the district of my home town) and the media pick these up and highlight them, and the rest of us get discontent with the system.

Really? Where are you from, and where did you get that figure from. I wouldn't have thought it was that high. Also, what do you mean by milking? Benefit fraud?

Sewinman

This is one of those political debates where I really do not have any bloody clue what the answer is. I suspect it is all terribly complicated and requires all sorts of cost/benefit analysis etc – therefore I am quite happy to defer decision making and debate to our elected and accountable representatives!

electric_blue

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
I'd like to hold up this post as an excellent example of why this forum stands accused of London-bias.

Cheers,
W.

The answer is that more people outside of London should post - don't blame us Londoners.

daviesee

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Now by readers are we talking about people who just read or those who contribute too... My usage was for those who contribute.

Now, is that numbers of peope who post, or numbers of posts?

The statistics get even more skewed.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

This is one of those political debates where I really do not have any bloody clue what the answer is. I suspect it is all terribly complicated and requires all sorts of cost/benefit analysis etc – therefore I am quite happy to defer decision making and debate to our elected and accountable representatives!

If everyone was as sensible as that the whole internet would be a tumble weed wasteland and what would DDD do all day?

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

the trouble is the media likes to tar entire groups of people with nice broad brush strokes because hatred/righteous indignation sells papers and in recent years they've been so rabi/vitriolic about the handful of cases where the system has been well and truly abused that all of a sudden everyone on benefits is being demonised so that when a goverment that hates it's poor people comes in to power they've got all the ammunition and public backing to introduce whatever sweeping cuts/caps they like without really thinking too much about how it will affect the people who genuinely rely on that support being there to help them maintain a similiar standard of living to the rest of the people in this country.

...and breathe.

In fact, have some more.....

The question is - why is the government (and hence the tax payer) helping people to have a similar standard of living "to the rest of the people in this country"? We're not a communist state (yet), and the welfare state should be a safety net for those at the very bottom, not a lifestyle choice.

I'd also be interested to know how I get a free house in Westminster? It would reduce the commute but apart from that it sounds lovely.

So what you seem to be saying (and I know I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect) is bring back the slums and workhouses. Or perhaps the banlieues, where the poor are safely out of the way?

I doubt those who have been born into a family crammed into a one-bed flat on an estate think of it as a lifestyle choice. As for 'getting on your bike' - last time I moved house it cost a lot of money just to move - if you don't have much money, you can't afford to move. And anyway, central London and other cities is where most employment (particularly low-skilled) is to be found.

I think it is deeply unhealthy for a city to become even more polarised than it already is. There is a body of thought that suggests that more equitable societies with less disparity between rich and poor have happier citizens. How hard a government should be trying to achieve a more equitable society is up for debate, but I certainly don't think a government should be pushing in the opposite direction towards a more polarised society.

jzed

notsoblue wrote:

JZed wrote:

I think everybody recognises not everybody on benefits is a dole dosser. The fact is there are too many people milking the system (take the 84% of people from the district of my home town) and the media pick these up and highlight them, and the rest of us get discontent with the system.

Really? Where are you from, and where did you get that figure from. I wouldn't have thought it was that high. Also, what do you mean by milking? Benefit fraud?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319447/In-Rochdale-4-70-breakfast-includes-Stella.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Left Rochdale 10 years ago but the statistics are no surprise. There were a high proportion of people at school content to get pregnant, get a council flat and claim benefits. Not sure of benefit fraud, just seeing what they can get, how little they have to do and exploiting it.

Some of the comments say it all "I get paid to sit on my arse so why would I go out and work"

W1

rjsterry wrote:

So what you seem to be saying (and I know I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect) is bring back the slums and workhouses. Or perhaps the banlieues, where the poor are safely out of the way?

I doubt those who have been born into a family crammed into a one-bed flat on an estate think of it as a lifestyle choice. As for 'getting on your bike' - last time I moved house it cost a lot of money just to move - if you don't have much money, you can't afford to move. And anyway, central London and other cities is where most employment (particularly low-skilled) is to be found.

I think it is deeply unhealthy for a city to become even more polarised than it already is. There is a body of thought that suggests that more equitable societies with less disparity between rich and poor have happier citizens. How hard a government should be trying to achieve a more equitable society is up for debate, but I certainly don't think a government should be pushing in the opposite direction towards a more polarised society.

If you don't have much money you won't have much stuff to move! And I presume that most of these properties are furnished anway (due to the above).

It seems that to be deemed poor means you can't afford 60 B&H a day, a bottle of White Lighting, a Sky subscrition and a 42" plasma TV and Xbox 360. There is a long way between that and a work-house....

Commuting isn't a breach of human rights - it's not like it's impossible to do 10 miles or more to get to work. So moving out of central London doesn't mean there's a desolate wasteland with no jobs and just shanty towns. The concept of having a free house and a job next door is laughable.

W1

JZed wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

JZed wrote:

I think everybody recognises not everybody on benefits is a dole dosser. The fact is there are too many people milking the system (take the 84% of people from the district of my home town) and the media pick these up and highlight them, and the rest of us get discontent with the system.

Really? Where are you from, and where did you get that figure from. I wouldn't have thought it was that high. Also, what do you mean by milking? Benefit fraud?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319447/In-Rochdale-4-70-breakfast-includes-Stella.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Left Rochdale 10 years ago but the statistics are no surprise. There were a high proportion of people at school content to get pregnant, get a council flat and claim benefits. Not sure of benefit fraud, just seeing what they can get, how little they have to do and exploiting it.

Some of the comments say it all "I get paid to sit on my ars* so why would I go out and work"

God, don't quote the DM on here - you might as well bludgeon a poor child to death with a gold bar.

jzed

W1 wrote:

JZed wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

JZed wrote:

I think everybody recognises not everybody on benefits is a dole dosser. The fact is there are too many people milking the system (take the 84% of people from the district of my home town) and the media pick these up and highlight them, and the rest of us get discontent with the system.

Really? Where are you from, and where did you get that figure from. I wouldn't have thought it was that high. Also, what do you mean by milking? Benefit fraud?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319447/In-Rochdale-4-70-breakfast-includes-Stella.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Left Rochdale 10 years ago but the statistics are no surprise. There were a high proportion of people at school content to get pregnant, get a council flat and claim benefits. Not sure of benefit fraud, just seeing what they can get, how little they have to do and exploiting it.

Some of the comments say it all "I get paid to sit on my ars* so why would I go out and work"

God, don't quote the DM on here - you might as well bludgeon a poor child to death with a gold bar.

Was the first link in google but take your pick:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8053265/Rush-hour-silence-in-a-welfare-ghetto-Sink-estate-by-passed-by-the-rush-hour.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9085000/9085135.stm

fidbod

In principle I think that benefits in general should be limited, and certainly not universal. By which I mean that lucky sods like me on a decent wage should have less claim on benefits. Some kind of inverse relationship to income seems perfectly reasonable

The principle of state benefits being a safety net to support you when things go wrong rather than a permanent income stream.

In terms of the specific cap on housing benefit, then yes it should be capped. In london at least, I think you will see a rapid adjustment in the charged rents.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So what you seem to be saying (and I know I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect) is bring back the slums and workhouses. Or perhaps the banlieues, where the poor are safely out of the way?

I doubt those who have been born into a family crammed into a one-bed flat on an estate think of it as a lifestyle choice. As for 'getting on your bike' - last time I moved house it cost a lot of money just to move - if you don't have much money, you can't afford to move. And anyway, central London and other cities is where most employment (particularly low-skilled) is to be found.

I think it is deeply unhealthy for a city to become even more polarised than it already is. There is a body of thought that suggests that more equitable societies with less disparity between rich and poor have happier citizens. How hard a government should be trying to achieve a more equitable society is up for debate, but I certainly don't think a government should be pushing in the opposite direction towards a more polarised society.

If you don't have much money you won't have much stuff to move! And I presume that most of these properties are furnished anway (due to the above).

It seems that to be deemed poor means you can't afford 60 B&H a day, a bottle of White Lighting, a Sky subscrition and a 42" plasma TV and Xbox 360. There is a long way between that and a work-house....

Commuting isn't a breach of human rights - it's not like it's impossible to do 10 miles or more to get to work. So moving out of central London doesn't mean there's a desolate wasteland with no jobs and just shanty towns. The concept of having a free house and a job next door is laughable.

I know, I live there, but rents aren't peanuts - comparable with the equivalent mortgage payment. And commuting is fine as well. But what happens to the what's left in the middle, leaving to one side how the outer London boroughs can suddenly absorb everyone from zones 1-3 who receives housing benefit?

To return to your point about the safety net - how grim should it be to avoid anyone getting too comfortable? What is an acceptable level of hardship? Are they allowed central heating?

Also, someone was arguing that life wasn't fair, and that it isn't government's job to try and make it so by redistributing wealth. Extending that argument, why should those who receive housing benefit go without just so that we can pay less tax. The argument being put forward for a cap on housing benefit seems to be that it's not fair on those who don't receive housing benefit and can't afford to live in central London on there own, but we've just established that life isn't fair.

I think the issue of a cap on housing benefit, and whether the benefits system as a whole is 'too comfortable' are two separate arguments. The former is mainly a result of the chronic shortage of council-owned property, as a legacy of right-to-buy, leading to them having to rely on the private sector to make up the shortfall. The latter is something that is much more open to debate. I don't think the solution is to make the benefit system so grim that people work instead, as survival on the minimum wage is pretty grim as it is, but I certainly think that there is nothing desirable about people getting 'parked' on benefits, because helping them get into work seems to be too difficult.

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

<puts on hat labelled 'Economics for the economically challenged'>

We may see a short term blip in the number of people unable to live in subsidised housing in London & maybe elsewhere, but if the bottom falls out of the rental market then before too long rents will have to fall to compensate. I can't be alone in thinking that the reason rents are high is because landlords know that without an effective upper limit on housing costs they can get away with charging what they fancy. Remove state subsidy and see what happens. I know where my money would be.

<doffs cap in anticpation of huge round of applause at spotting this obvious and simple effect of market forces at work>

this

joelsim

It's a very tough call. Who's a dosser and who actually deserves it? Every case has to be on its own merits although it is good to put a stake in the ground. I do object to paying high taxes and seeing families who aren't (and have no intention of) working have 8 kids and get given a nice house, and spend their benefits on plasma tvs, football shirts, Nike trainers and junk food. People like that should be given vouchers rather than cash with strict guidelines on what they can exchange them for ie healthy food and basic clothing, not Sky+.

They'd soon change (or go on the rob).

jds_1981

rjsterry wrote:

To return to your point about the safety net - how grim should it be to avoid anyone getting too comfortable? What is an acceptable level of hardship? Are they allowed central heating?

I'm quite happy to say pretty grim (with central heating.) Then any money earned on top goes to improving the situation.

W1

jds_1981 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

To return to your point about the safety net - how grim should it be to avoid anyone getting too comfortable? What is an acceptable level of hardship? Are they allowed central heating?

I'm quite happy to say pretty grim (with central heating.) Then any money earned on top goes to improving the situation.

If it's not "pretty grim" then where is the incentive to work? As I say, the welfare state should not be considered a choice - its there for when you have no choice.

Apparently you're deemed to be in poverty if your house is less than 18 degrees C. Poverty, not just on benefits, actual "fuel" poverty.

A jumper is, what, £3 in Oxfam? A hot water bottle a couple of quid?

bigmat

W1 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

To return to your point about the safety net - how grim should it be to avoid anyone getting too comfortable? What is an acceptable level of hardship? Are they allowed central heating?

I'm quite happy to say pretty grim (with central heating.) Then any money earned on top goes to improving the situation.

If it's not "pretty grim" then where is the incentive to work? As I say, the welfare state should not be considered a choice - its there for when you have no choice.

Apparently you're deemed to be in poverty if your house is less than 18 degrees C. Poverty, not just on benefits, actual "fuel" poverty.

A jumper is, what, £3 in Oxfam? A hot water bottle a couple of quid?

I guess it depends how "pretty grim" is defined. Pretty grim for most people on here would probably involve not having sufficient disposable income to buy the occasional treat, have a nice holiday a couple of times a year etc. Pretty grim for those on benefits should be grimmer than that, but people need to be able to sustain a civilised existence - clean, secure housing, nutritional food, adequate heating etc. I think the balance is wrong at the moment, but I worry things will shift too far the other way. No easy answers as far as I can see.

As for being in poverty if your house is less than 18 degrees C, well that'll be me then! That's the temperature we tried to keep at when the nipper was born as we were told any higher was too hot for a baby. That was considered the correct ambient temperature for human beings. So no jumper required, people just need to MTFU. I'm sure that wouldn't be deemed poverty up north, more like below 0!

sketchley

I don't think you see huge social movement due to this; maybe a bit but not a lot. Simple reason is what's going to happen to the property that's moved out of? The landlords, who will be the real losers here, will be left with an empty property probably not in the best areas, which they can no longer charge top rents for as housing benefit will not pay for it. They cannot sell up as housing market is not doing well at the moment. The options open to landlords are to either reduce rent and try and keep the existing tenant, or try to hold out for a new tenant at higher rent which is very unlikely. If the existing tenant moves out and a new tenant on housing benefit moves in they have same cap, and a new non benefit tenant is not going to pay more than the cap unless it's a very nice property in a very nice area and if that was the case it not likely to be rented to a housing benefit tenant anyway.

Why would a landlord charge a non housing benefit tenant less than what you would get from a housing benefit one, they don't and so all rental costs stay high because of housing benefit paying for high rents. Put a cap on housing benefit and roll the whole thing forward and you will see rental cost reduce across the board, this will take a while as tenancy agreements will need to expire and be renewed but it will happen. People can then afford to live in city centers that are currently forced out to the suburbs due to high rents propped up by housing benefit.

The only danger of this policy is that is may pull the rug out from under the buy to let industry and cause a further collapse in the housing market leading to cheaper property prices. This is not necessarily a bad thing as prices have been artificially high for a while mainly because of the high rents that are achievable. Consequently more family’s will be able to get on the property ladder as property that was previous snapped up by private landlords in order to make profit from rentals becomes less attractive for buy to let and therefore available and affordable to others.

The thing I keep thinking about when I look at this policy is where does the money currently go? Does it go to the family on benefits or does it go straight in to the pocket of the private landlord? Placing a cap on housing benefit will not take money out of the family’s pocket it will be taken away from the landlord.

daviesee

MatHammond wrote:

I guess it depends how "pretty grim" is defined. Pretty grim for most people on here would probably involve not having sufficient disposable income to buy the occasional treat, have a nice holiday a couple of times a year etc.

Pretty grim for me was penniless with a 1/2 pint of milk an onion a potato and a wee bit cheese to last 2 days till the next cheque. That next cheque left me around £40 for food for a month after the other bills were taken care of. I had already used up as many favours as my pride would allow.
People on long term benefits with Sky, computers, new pets, smoking, drinking, cars, horses (yes, I know of one), holidays etc, etc get little sympathy from me.

W1

MatHammond wrote:

I guess it depends how "pretty grim" is defined. Pretty grim for most people on here would probably involve not having sufficient disposable income to buy the occasional treat, have a nice holiday a couple of times a year etc. Pretty grim for those on benefits should be grimmer than that, but people need to be able to sustain a civilised existence - clean, secure housing, nutritional food, adequate heating etc. I think the balance is wrong at the moment, but I worry things will shift too far the other way. No easy answers as far as I can see.

Pretty grim means: no sky, no plasma TV, no holidays, no alcohol and no ciggs. None of those are necessary, all are luxuries and none of them can be justified using tax payers money. If you can "afford" them (i.e. choose to buy them over, say, food) then you don't need the help of the state.

As for below 18 degrees being "poverty" I couldn't agree more Matt. 18 degrees is comfortable. It's a long, long way from poverty.