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

jedster

notsoblu,

Theres plenty of social housing secreted away in very upmarket areas like Kensington, Chelsea etc... Areas like Westbourne Park and Ladbroke grove are very diverse, and by and large the communities exist well together

IME those communities live parallel but entirely seperate existances. They go to different schools, different pubs, different shops. The idea that the two sides are well integrated is laughable - there is almost no interaction. We used to live in Hampstead near the border with Kentish Town and Camden and it was exactly he same, actually its one of the reasons we moved out to a commuter town with good state schools - because everyone's children are in the same schooling system it feels much more of an integrated community.

Apart from that, I don't see the point in maintaining, say, Chelsea as a dumbell of social economic groupings (the really affluent and those on low enough income to qualify for benefits but a huge gap in the middle with no people on normal incomes). Why aren't you arguing that we should use a broader system of transfers to make the income distribution in Chelsea model that of the whole country? I suspect because you recognise it would be hugely intrusive, expensive and ultimately unjust (obviously demand exceeds supply in Chelsea - not everyone who wants to could live there) social engineering.

J

daviesee

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

What difference does it make wether the 'poor' live in 'inner city' ghettos or 'suburban' ghettos?

Could someone explain why it's common sense to end subsidies for coalmines, steelworks and shipyards in the industrial north decimating entire towns but 'social cleansing' if subsidies are ended in 'That London'?

London doesn't really have really proper Parisian style ghettos. It's much more localised and small.

This isn't particularly an argument for housing subsidies versus coalmining etc.

They're totally different, and quite unrelated in this instance.

In principle how are they different?

'Cos London is the centre of the universe and must be maintained at all cost :roll: :roll:

notsoblue

TailWindHome wrote:

Am I paying tax so that some working class people can live beside rich people in London and not have to live beside other working class people.

Well thats one way of looking at it, another way of looking at it is that a demographic that has been resident in certain areas of London for generations is being forced out of them due to gentrification. Areas like Notting Hill have changed a great deal in the last 40 years. And because there is very low home ownership amongst the poor, they've seen their rents skyrocket in that time. Hence the greater reliance on benefits to get the point where we are now.

This is a very similar situation to that which you find in many villages in the Peak district that have seen their house prices rise so drastically due to the popularity of holiday lets, weekend retreats and people from the city buying up all the cottages. Many of the once vibrant little villages have become ghost towns during the week, and working class people in the area just can't afford to buy property in the areas in which they grew up. So they're forced to move to suburbs in larger towns.

TailWindHome wrote:

How do the working class people who don't live in Kensington feel about this?

They're probably very bitter and resentful about it. And thats why its easier to make cuts to benefits rather than corporate tax avoidance.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

This is a very similar situation to that which you find in many villages in the Peak district that have seen their house prices rise so drastically due to the popularity of holiday lets, weekend retreats and people from the city buying up all the cottages. Many of the once vibrant little villages have become ghost towns during the week, and working class people in the area just can't afford to buy property in the areas in which they grew up. So they're forced to move to suburbs in larger towns.

And whilst there are a few people jumping up and down about it, there is a large (but silent) majority counting their profits.....

rjsterry

jedster wrote:

notsoblu,

Theres plenty of social housing secreted away in very upmarket areas like Kensington, Chelsea etc... Areas like Westbourne Park and Ladbroke grove are very diverse, and by and large the communities exist well together

IME those communities live parallel but entirely seperate existances. They go to different schools, different pubs, different shops. The idea that the two sides are well integrated is laughable - there is almost no interaction. We used to live in Hampstead near the border with Kentish Town and Camden and it was exactly he same, actually its one of the reasons we moved out to a commuter town with good state schools - because everyone's children are in the same schooling system it feels much more of an integrated community.

Apart from that, I don't see the point in maintaining, say, Chelsea as a dumbell of social economic groupings (the really affluent and those on low enough income to qualify for benefits but a huge gap in the middle with no people on normal incomes). Why aren't you arguing that we should use a broader system of transfers to make the income distribution in Chelsea model that of the whole country? I suspect because you recognise it would be hugely intrusive, expensive and ultimately unjust (obviously demand exceeds supply in Chelsea - not everyone who wants to could live there) social engineering.

J

The MP for Islington South made a very similar point about her constituency in an article I read a few months back. Having worked in Canonbury for a few years, I know exactly what you mean.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This is a very similar situation to that which you find in many villages in the Peak district that have seen their house prices rise so drastically due to the popularity of holiday lets, weekend retreats and people from the city buying up all the cottages. Many of the once vibrant little villages have become ghost towns during the week, and working class people in the area just can't afford to buy property in the areas in which they grew up. So they're forced to move to suburbs in larger towns.

And whilst there are a few people jumping up and down about it, there is a large (but silent) majority counting their profits.....

Yep. But I see this as equivalent to the "social cleansing" of London. Its just that there are more people speaking up about it in London. Personally I don't see it being ameliorated unless the government heavily invests in social engineering to reverse a process that is a natural result of a free property market. Theres very little public support for any such engineering, which I think is a shame. Resentment of others and a selfish focus on one's own tax bill will win out again.

btw, who are the silent majority here?

notsoblue

jedster wrote:

notsoblu,

Theres plenty of social housing secreted away in very upmarket areas like Kensington, Chelsea etc... Areas like Westbourne Park and Ladbroke grove are very diverse, and by and large the communities exist well together

IME those communities live parallel but entirely seperate existances. They go to different schools, different pubs, different shops. The idea that the two sides are well integrated is laughable - there is almost no interaction. We used to live in Hampstead near the border with Kentish Town and Camden and it was exactly he same, actually its one of the reasons we moved out to a commuter town with good state schools - because everyone's children are in the same schooling system it feels much more of an integrated community.

Well its clearly less of a good thing for those better off.

jedster wrote:

Apart from that, I don't see the point in maintaining, say, Chelsea as a dumbell of social economic groupings (the really affluent and those on low enough income to qualify for benefits but a huge gap in the middle with no people on normal incomes). Why aren't you arguing that we should use a broader system of transfers to make the income distribution in Chelsea model that of the whole country? I suspect because you recognise it would be hugely intrusive, expensive and ultimately unjust (obviously demand exceeds supply in Chelsea - not everyone who wants to could live there) social engineering.

J

You're absolutely right. And I'm not arguing that we should be pouring money into encouraging a Chelsea model everywhere. I'm just arguing against those who are saying that the result of the housing benefit changes won't be social cleansing.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

You're absolutely right. And I'm not arguing that we should be pouring money into encouraging a Chelsea model everywhere. I'm just arguing against those who are saying that the result of the housing benefit changes won't be social cleansing.

But I thought we had established that £1600pcm was perfectly sufficient to rent a reasonable property for a family in fairly central London? Maybe not a big place in Zone 1, maybe not as nice as they've had before, and maybe not for a family with 8 kids - but I don't have any sympathy for people who expect the state to stump up for them to live in a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill nor those who expect the taxpayer to support their breeding habit. In which case exactly who is going to be "cleansed" out of London?

I can't see the cap actually forcing anyone to live in a "ghetto" unless a £50k income also only just gets you into one (which, by the way, it doesn't!). It will, however, stop landlords (and tenants) taking the piss.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This is a very similar situation to that which you find in many villages in the Peak district that have seen their house prices rise so drastically due to the popularity of holiday lets, weekend retreats and people from the city buying up all the cottages. Many of the once vibrant little villages have become ghost towns during the week, and working class people in the area just can't afford to buy property in the areas in which they grew up. So they're forced to move to suburbs in larger towns.

And whilst there are a few people jumping up and down about it, there is a large (but silent) majority counting their profits.....

Really? I'd have thought it was the other way round. I'm sure those who sold there run down old farmhouse to a city boy who wanted a holiday home are keeping their heads down though.

tailwindhome

notsoblue wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Am I paying tax so that some working class people can live beside rich people in London and not have to live beside other working class people.

Well thats one way of looking at it, another way of looking at it is that a demographic that has been resident in certain areas of London for generations is being forced out of them due to gentrification. Areas like Notting Hill have changed a great deal in the last 40 years. And because there is very low home ownership amongst the poor, they've seen their rents skyrocket in that time. Hence the greater reliance on benefits to get the point where we are now.

This is a very similar situation to that which you find in many villages in the Peak district that have seen their house prices rise so drastically due to the popularity of holiday lets, weekend retreats and people from the city buying up all the cottages. Many of the once vibrant little villages have become ghost towns during the week, and working class people in the area just can't afford to buy property in the areas in which they grew up. So they're forced to move to suburbs in larger towns.

[/quote]

I live in just such a holiday town.

I can't afford to live in the nearby holiday town my wife's family have lived in for 5 generations.

Please make a cheque payable to 'Tailwindhome'.

TailWindHome wrote:

How do the working class people who don't live in Kensington feel about this?

They're probably very bitter and resentful about it. And thats why its easier to make cuts to benefits rather than corporate tax avoidance.

You've been busting to post that.

Thing is, collecting more tax doesn't justify spending it on Housing Benefit so Londoners can live in nice areas.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You're absolutely right. And I'm not arguing that we should be pouring money into encouraging a Chelsea model everywhere. I'm just arguing against those who are saying that the result of the housing benefit changes won't be social cleansing.

But I thought we had established that £1600pcm was perfectly sufficient to rent a reasonable property for a family in fairly central London? Maybe not a big place in Zone 1, maybe not as nice as they've had before, and maybe not for a family with 8 kids - but I don't have any sympathy for people who expect the state to stump up for them to live in a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill nor those who expect the taxpayer to support their breeding habit. In which case exactly who is going to be "cleansed" out of London?

I can't see the cap actually forcing anyone to live in a "ghetto" unless a £50k income also only just gets you into one (which, by the way, it doesn't!). It will, however, stop landlords (and tenants) taking the wee-wee.

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that there are thousands of people living in "a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill". When the reality indicates people living in properties like this: http://goo.gl/maps/2cot or http://goo.gl/maps/AW9U or http://goo.gl/maps/lISQ or http://goo.gl/maps/hNS3

notsoblue

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Am I paying tax so that some working class people can live beside rich people in London and not have to live beside other working class people.

Well thats one way of looking at it, another way of looking at it is that a demographic that has been resident in certain areas of London for generations is being forced out of them due to gentrification. Areas like Notting Hill have changed a great deal in the last 40 years. And because there is very low home ownership amongst the poor, they've seen their rents skyrocket in that time. Hence the greater reliance on benefits to get the point where we are now.

This is a very similar situation to that which you find in many villages in the Peak district that have seen their house prices rise so drastically due to the popularity of holiday lets, weekend retreats and people from the city buying up all the cottages. Many of the once vibrant little villages have become ghost towns during the week, and working class people in the area just can't afford to buy property in the areas in which they grew up. So they're forced to move to suburbs in larger towns.

I live in just such a holiday town.

I can't afford to live in the nearby holiday town my wife's family have lived in for 5 generations.

Please make a cheque payable to 'Tailwindhome'.

So you're happy with that situation then?

notsoblue wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

How do the working class people who don't live in Kensington feel about this?

They're probably very bitter and resentful about it. And thats why its easier to make cuts to benefits rather than corporate tax avoidance.

You've been busting to post that.[/quote]
Yeah, I have, I think its all related. Its easy to fall back onto the politics of resentment, it irritates me to see decisions made that way. I think its unjust.

TailWindHome wrote:

Thing is, collecting more tax doesn't justify spending it on Housing Benefit so Londoners can live in nice areas.

Its not as simple as that.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You're absolutely right. And I'm not arguing that we should be pouring money into encouraging a Chelsea model everywhere. I'm just arguing against those who are saying that the result of the housing benefit changes won't be social cleansing.

But I thought we had established that £1600pcm was perfectly sufficient to rent a reasonable property for a family in fairly central London? Maybe not a big place in Zone 1, maybe not as nice as they've had before, and maybe not for a family with 8 kids - but I don't have any sympathy for people who expect the state to stump up for them to live in a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill nor those who expect the taxpayer to support their breeding habit. In which case exactly who is going to be "cleansed" out of London?

I can't see the cap actually forcing anyone to live in a "ghetto" unless a £50k income also only just gets you into one (which, by the way, it doesn't!). It will, however, stop landlords (and tenants) taking the wee-wee.

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that there are thousands of people living in "a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill". When the reality indicates people living in properties like this: http://goo.gl/maps/2cot or http://goo.gl/maps/AW9U or http://goo.gl/maps/lISQ or http://goo.gl/maps/hNS3

Who said thousands? Not thousands, but some.

http://www.mynottinghill.co.uk/news/cou ... h-benefits

When you consider it's free, there's nothing wrong with the properties you've linked to....

So, do you think a £50k income means you can only afford to live in a ghetto?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that there are thousands of people living in "a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill". When the reality indicates people living in properties like this: http://goo.gl/maps/2cot or http://goo.gl/maps/AW9U or http://goo.gl/maps/lISQ or http://goo.gl/maps/hNS3

Who said thousands? Not thousands, but some.

http://www.mynottinghill.co.uk/news/cou ... h-benefits

When you consider it's free, there's nothing wrong with the properties you've linked to....

So, do you think a £50k income means you can only afford to live in a ghetto?

Come on fella, you can't use that as a representative sample... Somalis easily get special refugee status in this country. This just isn't representative. Its easy to cherry pick stories of appalling abuse of the system and claim that they're the rule rather than the exception.

What do you honestly think the situation of the average (or median, take your pick) family claiming housing benefit within zone one is? Are they all fertile, workshy Somali refugees?

And theres nothing particularly wrong with the properties I've linked to. But the point I was trying to make was that taxpayers aren't subsidising poor people to live for free in mansions like you've implied.

No, a £50k income doesn't mean you can only live in a ghetto. But the average wage (around £24k?) probably won't allow you to live without the help of government aid in central London.

Sewinman

I recommend people interested in this subject watch 'A Life without Work' on BBC2.

Quite sobering to see what conditions were once like. I view it as progress that we have left such times behind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Episode_2/

rjsterry

Sewinman wrote:

I recommend people interested in this subject watch 'A Life without Work' on BBC2.

Quite sobering to see what conditions were once like. I view it as progress that we have left such times behind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Episode_2/

Saw this the other week; sobering indeed. And yes, I think it is progress.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Come on fella, you can't use that as a representative sample... Somalis easily get special refugee status in this country. This just isn't representative. Its easy to cherry pick stories of appalling abuse of the system and claim that they're the rule rather than the exception.

What do you honestly think the situation of the average (or median, take your pick) family claiming housing benefit within zone one is? Are they all fertile, workshy Somali refugees?

And theres nothing particularly wrong with the properties I've linked to. But the point I was trying to make was that taxpayers aren't subsidising poor people to live for free in mansions like you've implied.

No, a £50k income doesn't mean you can only live in a ghetto. But the average wage (around £24k?) probably won't allow you to live without the help of government aid in central London.

I've never claimed that they are the rule. But this does happen - in other words there are cases where the taxpayer is paying thousands a month for peoople to live in huge central London houses and it's not acceptable.

The great irony is that to live in a £400 a week property you would need to be earning twice the national average wage. So those who earn an average wage can't live there, but those who liveoff benefits can. How is that an incentive to work? I would call that an incentive not to work.... Do you support that? Is incentivising people not to work a price worth paying for keeping London "engineered"?

hatbeard

W1 wrote:

I would call that an incentive not to work.... Do you support that? Is incentivising people not to work a price worth paying for keeping London "engineered"?

If the people in question were traffic wardens I think most people would be up for it.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

The great irony is that to live in a £400 a week property you would need to be earning twice the national average wage. So those who earn an average wage can't live there, but those who liveoff benefits can. How is that an incentive to work? I would call that an incentive not to work.... Do you support that? Is incentivising people not to work a price worth paying for keeping London "engineered"?

It's a housing subsidy - it's not freeloading. It's quite different.

For some people, usually the poor - it is just very difficult to earn enough to live there with the kind of work they can and do, do.

rjsterry

Given the relatively tiny number of people (compared with the 4.5million families claiming housing benefit) claiming above £400pw, and the proposed reduction in spending on housing benefit, the cuts are going to have to affect more than the handful of people living it up in W1 or wherever. It's also a bit disproportionate to base national housing benefit policy on a handful of abuses of the system in London, albeit that these cases do need to be dealt with.

wgwarburton

squired wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think the reality is that most people who receive the subsidy are not living 'excessively'.

If you have a family to support, the cost of having a property with more than one or two bedrooms can get very expensive. It's not unreasonable to suggest that a 1 bedroom flat is not appropriate for a family of 4.

If you can't afford to keep and house a family of four, don't have children. It is one thing if you fall on hard times and need help from the state, but otherwise you should make life decisions based on what you can afford.

However, failing to make the "correct" life decisions then hobbles the prospects of the children... a self-perpetuatiing situation.
This is, then, a problem for society as a whole, not just for the individuals, as society has to pick up the pieces. The challenge is that it doesn't appear to be posible to distinguish between those who are abusing the system (I want lots of kids but can't afford it- not my problem, I can live on benefits!) and those who are not (lost job/ lost partner/accident/appallingly bad luck/genuine mistake?).

Should we punish the children and guarantee them poor prospects? Having done so, why should we expect them not to repeat the cycle?

Cheers,
W.

londonlivvy

I live in SE19, not because I fell in love with the area (there were many other areas of London that I would certainly have preferred to live in), but because it was a good compromise between what I could afford and a commutable distance (25 mins to Victoria + tube to whereever you need to get to - or cycling distance) and a not too scary area. It seems to me fair to expect those who aren't paying for their accomodation to make at least as much effort to get to work / social life as someone who is.

In SE19, for £1200 a month you can get a really really nice two bed flat with garden or a perfectly fine 3 bed flat. On that basis, I think a cap at £400 seems fair, even if you do have a family.

W1

WGWarburton wrote:

However, failing to make the "correct" life decisions then hobbles the prospects of the children... a self-perpetuatiing situation.
This is, then, a problem for society as a whole, not just for the individuals, as society has to pick up the pieces. The challenge is that it doesn't appear to be posible to distinguish between those who are abusing the system (I want lots of kids but can't afford it- not my problem, I can live on benefits!) and those who are not (lost job/ lost partner/accident/appallingly bad luck/genuine mistake?).

Should we punish the children and guarantee them poor prospects? Having done so, why should we expect them not to repeat the cycle?

Cheers,
W.

I agree with all of that. However I don't see a £1600pcm cap forcing people into ghettos or a life of criminality.....

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

I agree with all of that. However I don't see a £1600pcm cap forcing people into ghettos or a life of criminality.....

I get the impression you have no clue about the type of family that will actually be affected by these changes... If it was just those that were claiming £1600pcm, I doubt many would have a problem with that.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I agree with all of that. However I don't see a £1600pcm cap forcing people into ghettos or a life of criminality.....

I get the impression you have no clue about the type of family that will actually be affected by these changes... If it was just those that were claiming £1600pcm, I doubt many would have a problem with that.

A £1600pcm cap is only going to effect those claiming more than that (obviously).....
[Or up to their own eligible cap - the point remains the same]

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I agree with all of that. However I don't see a £1600pcm cap forcing people into ghettos or a life of criminality.....

I get the impression you have no clue about the type of family that will actually be affected by these changes... If it was just those that were claiming £1600pcm, I doubt many would have a problem with that.

A £1600pcm cap is only going to effect those claiming more than that (obviously).....
[Or up to their own eligible cap - the point remains the same]

That's the point, the cuts in housing benefit aren't just a cap of £1600pcm. They have also allowed councils to base their payments on the 30th percentile of rents in an area, rather than the 50th percentile (or median rent). In short, virtually all housing benefits will be reduced. Now it depends how widely those areas are defined, but if you assume that 'area' means the whole borough or local authority, then those on housing benefits will be restricted to certain parts of those areas, where rents are at or below the 30th percentile. I'm sure you'll argue that that is all fine, and in London, it may be the 30th percentile in London probably still gets you somewhere reasonable. But in poorer cities, the 30th percentile is more likely to be some substandard hovel. Being given a free mansion doesn't encourage people to work, but neither does being dumped on a sink estate.

TheStone

rjsterry wrote:

That's the point, the cuts in housing benefit aren't just a cap of £1600pcm. They have also allowed councils to base their payments on the 30th percentile of rents in an area, rather than the 50th percentile (or median rent). In short, virtually all housing benefits will be reduced. Now it depends how widely those areas are defined, but if you assume that 'area' means the whole borough or local authority, then those on housing benefits will be restricted to certain parts of those areas, where rents are at or below the 30th percentile. I'm sure you'll argue that that is all fine, and in London, it may be the 30th percentile in London probably still gets you somewhere reasonable. But in poorer cities, the 30th percentile is more likely to be some substandard hovel. Being given a free mansion doesn't encourage people to work, but neither does being dumped on a sink estate.

Yep the move from 50th to 30th percentile is the much bigger change/cut. It differs between areas, but roughly 8-12% cut in cash terms.

In London, where 40% of the market is housing benefit, this should lead to cheaper rents. (as the distribution is so skewed by the subsidies). Regardless, this is surely a good move. Otherwise you're suggesting half of those hard working families paying tax and receiving no benefits should live in a 'substandard hovel'

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that there are thousands of people living in "a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill". When the reality indicates people living in properties like this: http://goo.gl/maps/2cot or http://goo.gl/maps/AW9U or http://goo.gl/maps/lISQ or http://goo.gl/maps/hNS3

Or, they could move here and be unaffected by the £400/week limit.

http://www.londonpropertygazette.co.uk/ ... 506f94abd9

Not exactly a ghetto as I see it. I still don't see the problem with the cap.

notsoblue

daviesee wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that there are thousands of people living in "a mansion in Westminster or Notting Hill". When the reality indicates people living in properties like this: http://goo.gl/maps/2cot or http://goo.gl/maps/AW9U or http://goo.gl/maps/lISQ or http://goo.gl/maps/hNS3

Or, they could move here and be unaffected by the £400/week limit.

http://www.londonpropertygazette.co.uk/ ... 506f94abd9

Not exactly a ghetto as I see it. I still don't see the problem with the cap.

Err, I'm not sure if you intended the irony of linking to a Peabody trust property?

rjsterry

Here's a worked example showing how much worse off a hard-working tax-paying, averagely paid person in Welwyn would be

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jul/15/housing-benefit-cuts-local-analysis

Turns out that councils don't use their own boundaries to work out the 30th percentile rents but some other definition.