Benefit capping

TheStone

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

There's a lack of social housing because it was all sold off cheap.

I don't believe there's a lack of housing generally. It's often stated, but I think it's just to give a legitimate reason for the increase in house prices (rather than a lending/debt bubble). In reality, even with the government underpinning 40% of the London rental market, rents have hardly shifted over the last 10-12 years. They started to rise last year, but that's now looking short lived .... and they've printed a hell of a lot of money since 2008.

asprilla

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

There are always options to move it's just that most people don't want to compromise.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

Ah, good old wealth redistribution.

rjsterry

suzyb wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder. I don't need my child benefit, I do enjoy it and it does help which is the purpose of it.

On a personal note I actually want something from the pot that I contribute to.

If they want to take child benefit away then do so, but do so fairly. It isn't right that two people on a combined £60,000 (earning £30,000 each) can claim and a person on £44,000 cannot.

I think going down to one salary is the hard part. Baby stuff isn't that expensive, you probably save that by going out less. Does the employee or govt pay the other half something? If not, they should.

Agree on the way they've set-up the CB changes. Makes no sense and makes the whole policy look stupid.

Not all employers provide maternity pay and the amount that is paid varies from nothing to full pay for 12 months. I think Child Benefit was there to help and help ease the burden. Honestly child benefit is surpassed by other child maintenance/benefits for those that need it. CB is a nice gesture from the Government to the people.

I thought employers had to provide maternity pay by law. Similar to sick pay, they had to pay it but it was a percentage of full salary.

There is a statutory minimum, which is actually paid by the employer, then claimed back from the govt. It is pretty minimal after the first few months. If you are self-employed, you don't get SMP, but can claim Maternity Allowance, which is pretty minimal too.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Expectingorbringingupchildren/DG_10018741
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Expectingorbringingupchildren/DG_10018869

DonDaddyD

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

There are always options to move it's just that most people don't want to compromise.

I think that is presumptuous. You couldn't possibly know everyones circumstances to comment on what is and what isn't a reasonable compomise or where people believe they've compromised enough on where they live.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

Ah, good old wealth redistribution.

Yeah, what kind of left wing pinko nutjob politician would advocate some crazy wealth redistribution scheme like Right to Buy?

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

Ah, good old wealth redistribution.

Indeed, being able to buy your council house for a third of its value is a pretty big example of wealth redistribution - introduced by Thatcher too - who'd have thought?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

There are always options to move it's just that most people don't want to compromise.

I think that is presumptuous. You couldn't possibly know everyones circumstances to comment on what is and what isn't a reasonable compomise or where people believe they've compromised enough on where they live.

Who mentioned REASONABLE compromise DDD - you are introducing subjective terms to justify your position

davmaggs

TheStone wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

There's a lack of social housing because it was all sold off cheap.

I don't believe there's a lack of housing generally. It's often stated, but I think it's just to give a legitimate reason for the increase in house prices (rather than a lending/debt bubble). In reality, even with the government underpinning 40% of the London rental market, rents have hardly shifted over the last 10-12 years. They started to rise last year, but that's now looking short lived .... and they've printed a hell of a lot of money since 2008.

It's not just a lack of social housing, they simply aren't making any more of zone 1 & 2 so this area will be price rationed. We're probably reaching the limit of what buildings can be sub-divided or remaining cellars that can be converted so we are into knocking down traditional London buildings or accepting that central London isn't going to keep housing the millions moving to the London each decade at a nice price or good conditions.

The state simply cannot keep paying more and more to keep poor people in prime parts of London like some kind of zoo exhibit. They have to move just like those on this forum having families do when they need space or take a hit on their pay.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

There are always options to move it's just that most people don't want to compromise.

I think that is presumptuous. You couldn't possibly know everyones circumstances to comment on what is and what isn't a reasonable compomise or where people believe they've compromised enough on where they live.

Yup, which is why theres so much wiggle room for people to criticise those on benefits. The whole spectrum from those who see CB as a nice top up to their income to others that have 12 kids and have never worked a day in their life.

TheStone

rjsterry wrote:

Indeed, being able to buy your council house for a third of its value is a pretty big example of wealth redistribution - introduced by Thatcher too - who'd have thought?

She was trying to make everyone a home owner in the hope that would make them a Tory voter.
Labour could have stopped it, but didn't
New Tories now trying the same trick, but I doubt there's much stock left that's worth buying.

So short sighted. All government are too big and too stupid.

rjsterry

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you have a child you go down to one income shared by three people. Living a life becomes incredibly harder.

Yes it does. But then you choose to live where you do.

When we planned TMP we decided to move out of London in order to reduce our outgoings. We also put enough in savings to cover most of Mrs A's costs whilst she was on maternity leave prior to TMP arriving.

OK this isn't about me. But I feel compelled.

1: Leaving London isn't always feasible or even the best option for the family.

2: That family may already be paying the best available price for where they leave in a 5-10 mile radius of where they live.

There are always options to move it's just that most people don't want to compromise.

Where you (Asprilla) and I live is certainly cheaper than Putney or Chiswick, but it's still well out of the reach of a lot of people, particularly those that are currently on housing benefit.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

Ah, good old wealth redistribution.

Indeed, being able to buy your council house for a third of its value is a pretty big example of wealth redistribution - introduced by Thatcher too - who'd have thought?

Very good, both of you.

Poor old Thatcher - too much wealth distribution it seems. Who'd of thought, indeed.

rjsterry

TheStone wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

There's a lack of social housing because it was all sold off cheap.

I don't believe there's a lack of housing generally. It's often stated, but I think it's just to give a legitimate reason for the increase in house prices (rather than a lending/debt bubble). In reality, even with the government underpinning 40% of the London rental market, rents have hardly shifted over the last 10-12 years. They started to rise last year, but that's now looking short lived .... and they've printed a hell of a lot of money since 2008.

:shock: So if not lack of supply, what is keeping London house prices moving upward when the rest of the country is flat or falling? I mean, the lending bubble has pretty much burst now, but with little effect inside the M25

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Who mentioned REASONABLE compromise DDD - you are introducing subjective terms to justify your position

Please.. you are trying to bait me. You either like me and my debating skills, points or perspective. Or disagree with everything I say. Those being the two reasons why you always seem to respond to me.

Anyway. To the point; yes reasonable compromise is a subjective term. But I put it to you sir that a compromise is subjective in and of itself. One would need to perceive the action as a compromise of their initial position in the first place and that, sir, is subjective. I'm just extending the notion to cover what one would perceive as reasonable or unreasonable.

Given that we are talking travel to work and to do so comfortably, also subjective. The notion of what is reasonable is entirely valid.

I don't believe I need to justify my personal position or circumstances.

daviesee

Won't affect us after 2014!

You can keep your London-centric nonsense. Ha, ha!














Just messin' None of the above will happen.

SteppenHerring

The problem with the cap is that it's a "per household" cap. Take the situation where you've got a large household, maybe grown up kids, grandparents or other adults. Now the state wont pay for a big enough place for all of them.

It'll pay for two places if they split up "the household" though.

Doh!

The other issue is that, as mentioned, over 70% of housing benefit recipients are actually in work. Yeah, you could make them move to cheaper areas but if they can't afford £4K a year for getting to work on public transport, well they'll just have to jack in their job and go on the dole.

Yeah, it's ridiculous that us taxpayers are subsiding the property rental market in London but what are the alternatives? Apart from building/acquiring council housing ...

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

Ah, good old wealth redistribution.

Indeed, being able to buy your council house for a third of its value is a pretty big example of wealth redistribution - introduced by Thatcher too - who'd have thought?

Very good, both of you.

Poor old Thatcher - too much wealth distribution it seems. Who'd of thought, indeed.

Do we get a prize? As voter-bribery goes, it's pretty breathtaking when you look at it. I wonder if anyone has done the sums on how much capital has been given away - must be into the £billions.

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Who mentioned REASONABLE compromise DDD - you are introducing subjective terms to justify your position

Furthermore are you suggesting that people should consider making unreasonable compromises when it comes to choosing where they live in relation to where they work.

Please.

asprilla

rjsterry wrote:

Where you (Asprilla) and I live is certainly cheaper than Putney or Chiswick, but it's still well out of the reach of a lot of people, particularly those that are currently on housing benefit.

Very true. In this case though I was talking about child benefit making things a little more 'comfortable' for people.

There are quite a few one and two bed flats for between 85k and 150k within 3 miles of my house and this is only 25 minutes by train from central London. That's still going to be £5-700 a month for a mortgage, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper that a one or two bed flat in zone 2,3 or 4. Hell, I bought a four bed house where I live because it was the same prices as a one bed flat in Earlsfield!

People just won't sacrifice.

sketchley

Quick point on the sell off of social housing, most of this was to housing associations they are not likely to affected by the housing benefit cap as they are not the ones charging in excess of £400 per month.

Some of the sell off was of course to tenant that lived in the property. Of course some of these have benefited from selling these on and some private landlords have subsequently benefited from buying these and charging big rents back to new "social housing" tenants at inflated rents. The cap address this by either forcing these rents down or removing the houses from the rental market at which point they become affordable houses to buy.

I really cannot see a downside to a cap in housing benefit, anyone care to find one?

Wallace1492

daviesee wrote:

Won't affect us after 2014!

You can keep your London-centric nonsense. Ha, ha!














Just messin' None of the above will happen.

Ah yes, the wide open spaces up here, the fresh air, the countryside as far as the eye can see. not for us the smog of old London Town, the cobbled streets awash with human waste, and the incessant thundering of those infernal horseless carriages....

sketchley

Asprilla wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Where you (Asprilla) and I live is certainly cheaper than Putney or Chiswick, but it's still well out of the reach of a lot of people, particularly those that are currently on housing benefit.

Very true. In this case though I was talking about child benefit making things a little more 'comfortable' for people.

There are quite a few one and two bed flats for between 85k and 150k within 3 miles of my house and this is only 25 minutes by train from central London. That's still going to be £5-700 a month for a mortgage, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper that a one or two bed flat in zone 2,3 or 4. Hell, I bought a four bed house where I live because it was the same prices as a one bed flat in Earlsfield!

People just won't sacrifice.

+1 I have three bed house in Worcester Park (Zone 4) 1 bed flats in Earlsfield (Zone 3) are about the same price. Distance between the two is about 8 miles. However in my home town of Sittingbourne I could buy a 4 bedroom detached house, with an acre of land in a "Fabulous Location", in the Mrs Sketchley's home town of Preston I could get a pretty stunning 5 bedroom detached home.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The trouble with housing benefit in particular is that is a 'sticking plaster' to a a more fundamental problem - the lack of social housing. There is a housing shortage full stop in London, which continues to keep prices artificially high, and nowhere near enough of the stuff that is built is given over to 'affordable' units. While being able to buy your council flat or house at an absolute knock down price is great for the social mobility of the tenant in question, it takes yet another home out of the social housing pool.

Ah, good old wealth redistribution.

Indeed, being able to buy your council house for a third of its value is a pretty big example of wealth redistribution - introduced by Thatcher too - who'd have thought?

Very good, both of you.

Poor old Thatcher - too much wealth distribution it seems. Who'd of thought, indeed.

Do we get a prize? As voter-bribery goes, it's pretty breathtaking when you look at it. I wonder if anyone has done the sums on how much capital has been given away - must be into the £billions.

Indeed - almost as good as getting such a decent chunk of the country relying on the state (through benefits or public sector overemployment) that they won't vote against the government in case the gravy train stops.

Almost worked.

clarkey cat

Tell me about. I have a 9 bedroomed house in an exclusive private estate in Surrey - and for that I could probably buy the whole of Snowdonia.

W1

Asprilla wrote:

People just won't sacrifice.

That's the sense of entitlement that people now have. Why should they have to sacrifice? They deserve to live where they want.

Anyway, I'm on your ignore list so you won't see this.

Asprilla smells of wee wee.

jedster

DDD made an interesting point about people needing to get something out for what they paid in.

Because we live in a Country with a set of principles where state welfare is a needed function of maintaining the society within the Country. We have or will all benefit from public funds/benefits in some way or another.

If we go the route of I don't claim X so I won't/shouldn't be contributing to pot Y. Then we should dissolve our other state funded institutions.

You often here this comment from the older generation when people talk about changes to pensions/ ending free bus passes/ etc. "we paid in for all those years now its our turn to get something out". Nick Robinson did a documentary on tax and spending recently and one of the more striking facts he highlighted was that only the top 20% of earners make a NET contribution - i.e., pay tax which is greater than the benefits they get from state pension, benefits, state education, NHS care, etc, etc. An even more striking statistic was that only to bottom 20% THINK that they get out more than they pay in - most people believe, wrongly, that they are subsidising other people when they are actually being subsidised...

BTW: I think the cap is sensible and a good point of principle. Transition needs to be handled carefully though.

asprilla

clarkey cat wrote:

Tell me about. I have a 9 bedroomed house in an exclusive private estate in Surrey - and for that I could probably buy the whole of Snowdonia.

I take it when you said the Village, you meant Burhill or St Georges Hill.....

You moving to the new flats on the green? Just had a look online and according to the images the estate agent has listed the bathroom has a view of Manhattan. Obviously they are bigger than I thought....

asprilla

W1 wrote:

Asprilla smells of wee wee.

For some reason I expected better.

clarkey cat

Nah - a little 2 bed semi just by Waitrose (heaven)

Don't want to pay stamp duty on first house so getting something modest and then will go for the 9 bedroomed mega-pad when (i) I'm alot lot richer (ii) someone (possibly me) has impregnated Mrs Cat again.