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

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

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

Not being familiar with London, no.

Just thought it showed a property that looks pretty decent to me under the proposed limit.

Just to get the thread really flaming, how many Londoners on this thread are really upset not out of principle but in fact because it may impact directly on them? :twisted:

notsoblue

daviesee wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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

Not being familiar with London, no.

Just thought it showed a property that looks pretty decent to me under the proposed limit.

Check this out: http://www.peabody.org.uk/about-us.aspx

daviesee wrote:

Just to get the thread really flaming, how many Londoners on this thread are really upset not out of principle but in fact because it may impact directly on them? :twisted:

Its all about the principle for me, I don't claim housing benefit. Though I don't see why someone directly affected by this should have a somehow less valid opinion?

hatbeard

daviesee wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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

Not being familiar with London, no.

Just thought it showed a property that looks pretty decent to me under the proposed limit.

Just to get the thread really flaming, how many Londoners on this thread are really upset not out of principle but in fact because it may impact directly on them? :twisted:

not anymore I earn a decent wage and pay an extortionat amount of rent by myself, but it would have when I was growing up.

lardboy

What's more shocking from that Guardian piece is that a family on £30K a year should need and qualify for housing benefit! If house prices and rents weren't so inflated then the state wouldn't need to intervene.

A decade of actively inflating the housing market allied with an ideological compulsion to have as many people as possible relying on the state has screwed up our economy and social system.

W1

lardboy wrote:

What's more shocking from that Guardian piece is that a family on £30K a year should need and qualify for housing benefit! If house prices and rents weren't so inflated then the state wouldn't need to intervene.

A decade of actively inflating the housing market allied with an ideological compulsion to have as many people as possible relying on the state has screwed up our economy and social system.

I was thinking that. How on earth did we get into a situation where there is a system in place to take tax at source, pass it through god knows how many government departments, and then pay it straight back out again, just so someone on more than the national average wage can rent a house? I think I've found a source for some cost savings!

Maybe it was the state's intervention that pushes rents up? If everyone is on housing benefit (or even just the 4.5 million!) then no wonder rents are high.

Although (flame suit on) I also wonder whether it was entirely sensible for such a person to have three children (another DDD epic for another day perhaps)....

I wonder if I qualify for housing benefit?

rjsterry

lardboy wrote:

What's more shocking from that Guardian piece is that a family on £30K a year should need and qualify for housing benefit! If house prices and rents weren't so inflated then the state wouldn't need to intervene.

A decade of actively inflating the housing market allied with an ideological compulsion to have as many people as possible relying on the state has screwed up our economy and social system.

Agreed that house prices and rents are high, but whether that's anything to do with a Labour or Conservative government ideology, I'm not so sure. Both have pushed home ownership as an unalloyed good, and presided over housing booms. The last government seemed pretty light on ideology - one criticism was that they were more worried about what the latest focus group said rather than sticking to their principles.

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

daviesee wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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

Not being familiar with London, no.

Just thought it showed a property that looks pretty decent to me under the proposed limit.

Check this out: http://www.peabody.org.uk/about-us.aspx

daviesee wrote:

Just to get the thread really flaming, how many Londoners on this thread are really upset not out of principle but in fact because it may impact directly on them? :twisted:

Its all about the principle for me, I don't claim housing benefit. Though I don't see why someone directly affected by this should have a somehow less valid opinion?

We need more of Peabody and less Government assistance/intervention.

Anyone directly affected has just as valid an opinion. I am just curious as to why overinflated house prices and rentals are being justified.

lardboy

rjsterry wrote:

lardboy wrote:

What's more shocking from that Guardian piece is that a family on £30K a year should need and qualify for housing benefit! If house prices and rents weren't so inflated then the state wouldn't need to intervene.

A decade of actively inflating the housing market allied with an ideological compulsion to have as many people as possible relying on the state has screwed up our economy and social system.

Agreed that house prices and rents are high, but whether that's anything to do with a Labour or Conservative government ideology, I'm not so sure. Both have pushed home ownership as an unalloyed good, and presided over housing booms. The last government seemed pretty light on ideology - one criticism was that they were more worried about what the latest focus group said rather than sticking to their principles.

I know what you mean, but the number of additional interactions with the state that Blair and Brown instigated makes you wonder if there was an agenda to make people expect state involvement as a matter of course, rather than as an exception. The Tax Credits system alone is enough to drive a grown man insane.

notsoblue

lardboy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

lardboy wrote:

What's more shocking from that Guardian piece is that a family on £30K a year should need and qualify for housing benefit! If house prices and rents weren't so inflated then the state wouldn't need to intervene.

A decade of actively inflating the housing market allied with an ideological compulsion to have as many people as possible relying on the state has screwed up our economy and social system.

Agreed that house prices and rents are high, but whether that's anything to do with a Labour or Conservative government ideology, I'm not so sure. Both have pushed home ownership as an unalloyed good, and presided over housing booms. The last government seemed pretty light on ideology - one criticism was that they were more worried about what the latest focus group said rather than sticking to their principles.

I know what you mean, but the number of additional interactions with the state that Blair and Brown instigated makes you wonder if there was an agenda to make people expect state involvement as a matter of course, rather than as an exception. The Tax Credits system alone is enough to drive a grown man insane.

lol! Please, I'm dying to know, what possible evil motive could there be behind this agenda?

lardboy

notsoblue wrote:

lardboy wrote:

I know what you mean, but the number of additional interactions with the state that Blair and Brown instigated makes you wonder if there was an agenda to make people expect state involvement as a matter of course, rather than as an exception. The Tax Credits system alone is enough to drive a grown man insane.

lol! Please, I'm dying to know, what possible evil motive could there be behind this agenda?

God only knows, but these are the people who seemed to love collecting data: (illegal) collection of DNA from innocent people, the thankfully defunct ID cards, RFID passports, massive upscaling of CCTV in all areas of life, tried to implement CRB checks so heavy-handedly that world famous authors would not be allowed to go into schools for reading visits. Outside of the blanket "security" excuse, what reason did they have for these things?

A government should be in fear of the people, not the other way around; to mangle Thomas Jefferson

W1

lardboy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

lardboy wrote:

I know what you mean, but the number of additional interactions with the state that Blair and Brown instigated makes you wonder if there was an agenda to make people expect state involvement as a matter of course, rather than as an exception. The Tax Credits system alone is enough to drive a grown man insane.

lol! Please, I'm dying to know, what possible evil motive could there be behind this agenda?

God only knows, but these are the people who seemed to love collecting data: (illegal) collection of DNA from innocent people, the thankfully defunct ID cards, RFID passports, massive upscaling of CCTV in all areas of life, tried to implement CRB checks so heavy-handedly that world famous authors would not be allowed to go into schools for reading visits. Outside of the blanket "security" excuse, what reason did they have for these things?

A government should be in fear of the people, not the other way around; to mangle Thomas Jefferson

What about the simple fact that relying on the state means you fear change? In which case through gross expansion of the public sector labour force tied to increasing reliance on the state Labour were trying to make themselves invinsible come election time....

Pitty for them it didn't work. Trouble for the current lot is that they need to sort it out, which is not going to be popular....

Sewinman

It is all a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :roll:

rjsterry

I think you both give them way too much credit.

lardboy

rjsterry wrote:

I think you both give them way too much credit.

From the George Osborne Thread

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine it's still considered political suicide to be seen to cut the NHS, which rather confirms my suspicions that the cuts are as much ideologically as financially motivated.

The Labour Party's growth of the state's role in society wasn't driven by ideology, but the Coalition shrinking of it is? Seems a strange viewpoint to have.

bigmat

lardboy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think you both give them way too much credit.

From the George Osborne Thread

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine it's still considered political suicide to be seen to cut the NHS, which rather confirms my suspicions that the cuts are as much ideologically as financially motivated.

The Labour Party's growth of the state's role in society wasn't driven by ideology, but the Coalition shrinking of it is? Seems a strange viewpoint to have.

Not really, if you take the view that the Labour party's growing of the state was motivated by a desire to :

a) provide useful employment in large areas of the country devastated by the dismantling of traditional manufacturing industry;

b) bring public services and infrastructure back up to a decent standard after 15 years of chronic underinvestment.

It was a pragmatic decision, not an idealogical one. They may have gone too far, of course, but that's a different argument.

lardboy

MatHammond wrote:

lardboy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think you both give them way too much credit.

From the George Osborne Thread

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine it's still considered political suicide to be seen to cut the NHS, which rather confirms my suspicions that the cuts are as much ideologically as financially motivated.

The Labour Party's growth of the state's role in society wasn't driven by ideology, but the Coalition shrinking of it is? Seems a strange viewpoint to have.

Not really, if you take the view that the Labour party's growing of the state was motivated by a desire to :

a) provide useful employment in large areas of the country devastated by the dismantling of traditional manufacturing industry;

b) bring public services and infrastructure back up to a decent standard after 15 years of chronic underinvestment.

It was a pragmatic decision, not an idealogical one. They may have gone too far, of course, but that's a different argument.

Both these seem like ideological reasons to me.

bigmat

Maybe - I thought they were both fundamental to the very purpose of government - to serve the people by ensuring employment and adequate facilities. But arguably it is an idealogical issue, as the other party has (historically) taken the view that its fine to run services into the ground and to create an environment where mass unemployment is the norm in large parts of the country. I'm reserving my position on whether anything has changed, although the signs aren't promising...

DonDaddyD

OK. THE MIGHTY VIEW OF DonDaddyD

Lets establish something, Cameron has always maintained that he wants benefits to encourage those who are able back into work. Not to allow them to live a life greater than, equal or lower than a person who works full time.

As a socio-cultural ideology that is no bad thing.

Perspective (on London by a Londoner who is class-less)

• Capping housing allowance rates at £250 a week for a one-bedroom flat, £290 for a two bed, £340 for a three bed and £400 a week for a four-bedroom property.

Living in Wimbledon is a luxury for me.

If I had it my way we would live further South or somewhere where I can get a train to a tube station. I wouldn't live in an area with a tube station. Living by a tube station can raise the cost of rent/value of the property by ludicrous amounts irrespective of whether the area is affluent or socially depraved.

Equally when looking at the area and not having kids to think about I would live on the edge of a rough area and the cusp of an affluent one a little like Brixton/Herne Hill and Peckham/Dulwich. You want to be paying Peckham prices and living a Dulwich lifestyle.

When we were looking for somewhere to rent we set our realistic price and shopped around until we found something suitable and affordable. Older people think our rent is expensive. Younger people think its good, cheap even. There were a few places cheaper than where we live now and all were about the same size.

I think (some) people have become lazy and stopped looking for value for money or have simple lost sight of value. Why?

I live between the Northern Line Tube and Wimbeldon Station proper. I can get to London Bridge via the Northern Line in 30 - 40mins (rush hour). Wimbledon station has the District Line (West London to East London), trams to Croydon and Beckenham (South and South East London/Kent/Surrey) and British Rail, which amongst other places will get you to Clapham Junction in 10 - 15mins (a hub station leading to nearly everywhere South of the London) and Waterloo in 20mins. There is also a bus depot.

Wimbledon is no bad area. They play tennis near there in Southfields.

£250 a week housing benefit for our zone 3/4, 1 bedroom flat would leave me about £100 - £200 change to spend on luxuries or pay the Gas and Electricity bill or Council Tax.

I agree with the cap.

Ethical debate

• Reducing housing benefit by 10% for people who have been on a jobseeker's allowance for 12 months or more.

The great resentment of some (me) is that for all my years of hard work, I who strived to get where I am has less luxuries than those who I went to school with and didn't bother to turn up to their GCSE's. What was the point of trying if people who didn't try can afford, through benefits, the same lifestyle I fought to have?

These same people somehow think that it is OK for me to pay more tax (both as a numerical figure and a percentage) than them because I earn more regardless that I worked to get there. They expect benefits and hand outs as though they are owed some great debt to society and they feel the successful should be made victims of their success/luck.

These are people who should be 'encouraged to work'.

This however isn't the majority of people, what about those who are physically or mentally unable to work full time or those that do work in low paying jobs and need extra support due to spiralling costs poor financial decision/luck or who have families.

These are people I think we shouldn't marginalise and who we should support.

On families
We cannot tell a person how many kids they can have, nor can we control it. A person may be able to have 1 kid and ends up unwittingly having another or twins. Mistakes happen and abortion is a deeply personal choice.

I think we should always support families but the grey area are those who harvest kids to get more benefits.

Moving people out of London and creating suburban ghettos

Try to deny it all you want, its real and its a worry. There are a large number of council/social housing in socially deprived areas like Peckham, Thorton Heath, Stockwell, Oval etc. All are relatively close to the centre. Would you walk through there at night? I wouldn't like to.

Move those people out and you get the same thing as now in a different area. Clump them together in larger communitees and you only serve to strengthen the selfdestructive culture that is rife in those communitees. The end result is engaging with those communitees becomes increasingly harder. Compton and New York has its no go areas where the population of one social demographic outweighs the ability to police, engage or educate it.

What worries me is that while there is all this talk of the 'Exodus of the Poor', no one is talking about educational, job or life opportunities for these people. You want to solve deprivation in society you educate it to become self-aware of its negative and self-destructive properties. You don't alienate, ostracise, invalidate or marginalise it. (Enough buzz words?)

The most beautiful thing about London, in my opinion, is that I moved from Brixton to Norbury, went to a failing school and lived five doors away from a my best friend who went to one of the top private schools in the Country on an assissted place. My parents bought their home, his rented their's.

That's diversity.

Because of it we both went to University and we both experienced, lower, working, middle and upper class cultures. We know and are friends with people who are extremely wealthy, affluent and those who are not. And we feel richer for it.

Like I said diversity.

I don't agree with forcing people outwards and potentially clumping them together, which will see the return, though they never went away, Sinkhole Estates.

rjsterry

lardboy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think you both give them way too much credit.

From the George Osborne Thread

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine it's still considered political suicide to be seen to cut the NHS, which rather confirms my suspicions that the cuts are as much ideologically as financially motivated.

The Labour Party's growth of the state's role in society wasn't driven by ideology, but the Coalition shrinking of it is? Seems a strange viewpoint to have.

Consistent? Moi?

I think Labour are happy to see the state expand, but I'm not sure whether they are specifically trying to engineer large scale reliance on the state, so that they can 'tie-in' voters. That seems a bit too much like a conspiracy theory to me.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine it's still considered political suicide to be seen to cut the NHS, which rather confirms my suspicions that the cuts are as much ideologically as financially motivated.

I just want to make something clear.

As a response to the recession the Last Government demanded the NHS make:

£20 billion effieciency savings on top of the 3% savings each NHS Trust has to make every year.

Back then the Finance Director said that the Trust has made all the operational cuts it could feasibly make against the services it had to provide. The next step was to reduce the workforce.

That was a cut.

At the time of the £20billion efficency savings my Manager said that the NHS wouldn't feel the recession until it had swept through the private sector. Ironic because:

Instead of going after the NHS budget directly, the Coalition Government has cut sources of income NHS Trust's would normally get from commissioning services.

So for example half the budget of public services in a particular borough has been cut. These doesn't cut the bueracracy it simply means cuts to those services or job cuts for people working in those services.

rjsterry

Wow, you've been saving that up haven't you DDD?

[pedant]I think you mean socially deprived, not socially depraved (now there's an image)[/pedant]

Can't say I disagree with anything there. BTW, relocating large numbers of working calss/lower income/however-you-want-to-define-it people is nothing new. Just north of where I live is a huge 1930s, vaguely garden-suburb style council estate, that was built to rehouse the population from East End slum clearances. The sense of dislocation that these people felt despite being housed in much better conditions is well documented in local history archives. Although, as council estates go, it's very good, and integrates pretty well into the surrounding private housing (lots of 1930s semis with plenty of mock-tudor), there's still something of a monoculture feel about it, which is hardly a positive thing.

A more recent example, which has had much more negative results is 'Artcliffe in Bristol.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine it's still considered political suicide to be seen to cut the NHS, which rather confirms my suspicions that the cuts are as much ideologically as financially motivated.

I just want to make something clear.

As a response to the recession the Last Government demanded the NHS make:

£20 billion effieciency savings on top of the 3% savings each NHS Trust has to make every year.

Back then the Finance Director said that the Trust has made all the operational cuts it could feasibly make against the services it had to provide. The next step was to reduce the workforce.

That was a cut.

At the time of the £20billion efficency savings my Manager said that the NHS wouldn't feel the recession until it had swept through the private sector. Ironic because:

Instead of going after the NHS budget directly, the Coalition Government has cut sources of income NHS Trust's would normally get from commissioning services.

So for example half the budget of public services in a particular borough has been cut. These doesn't cut the bueracracy it simply means cuts to those services or job cuts for people working in those services.

The key words in my post are 'seen to be'. I'm well aware that they are actually cutting NHS spending - just trying to make it look as though they aren't.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Wow, you've been saving that up haven't you DDD?
[pedant]I think you mean socially deprived, not socially depraved (now there's an image)[/pedant]

Nope I mean depraved. Some of the values and mindsets of the people in such communities, I see as now being socially depraved.

Socially deprived area can lead to some people being socially depraved.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Wow, you've been saving that up haven't you DDD?
[pedant]I think you mean socially deprived, not socially depraved (now there's an image)[/pedant]

Nope I mean depraved. Some of the values and mindsets of the people in such communities, I see as now being socially depraved.

Socially deprived area can lead to some people being socially depraved.

rhext

The problem with the existing system is that if you have a large rental sector and enough people on housing benefit, it's almost guaranteed to drive both house prices and rents up.

If I understand the system correctly, the local authority does a calculation based on your income and the median rental cost of the property you're 'entitled' to live in based on the size of your household. If your income minus your rent doesn't leave you enough to live on, then you're eligible for housing benefit.

But as landlords put up their rents, the median goes up and the housing benefit entitlement automatically goes up too. Landlords would argue that putting rent up at least in line with house price inflation in that area is a reasonable thing to do - but the more rent you can get from a property, the more that property is worth (particularly with declining investment income from other sources). So unless you put in some sort of correction factors, landlord's natural temptation to increase their rent as much as they can get away with drives house price inflation, justifies higher rental charges.

Put yourself in the position of a landlord: all of your tenants turn round and say 'can't afford the rent any more, going to have to move out'. What do you do? You could say 'off you go then'. But what happens then, now you have an empty property? You're not going to be able to fill it with another benefit claimant, it's income-generating potential has just fallen, so likely it's price has too. And there'll be lots of other similarly empty properties.....

I think this step is necessary, I think it will be painful for both landlords and tenants. But I also think it'll even out over time and might actually have a positive effect, both on the availability of affordable housing and obviously on the tax bill!