Benefit capping

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

OK, well as a childless man (so far, that I know of, nudge nudge), what do I get as a "gesture and benefit of investing and being a productive part of this society"? What "makes paying taxes more palatable" for me? I can assure you that it isn't the thought that if, god forbid, I had kids, I'd get £20 a week for them!

Just because CB isn't the most wasteful benefit doesn't mean it should be reconsidered.

Can Tories as blue as you actually do it? Wow! I thought you all just looked at each other menacingly waiting to stick be stuck with a knife in the back...

You have a point. My only rebuttle (a weak one) is that this Societies collective culture likes to place emphasis and reward on families. That in and of itself isn't fair however.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

At least judging by the number of posters in windows come election time I saw far more political activism and inclusion in the Rhondda during my time there than anywhere else I've lived in my life.

Political exclusion my arrse.

South Wales is a special case though, don't you think? Strong politicisation of the working class there. Besides, this is around election time... You just have to compare coverage of parliamentary issues in the broadsheets versus the tabloids, or watch Question Time, or listen to Any Questions to get an idea of what kind of demographic actually follows the political discourse.

Two point here from me.

1. South Wales is a special case but as per my point earlier you would socially excluded their if you are a right wing Tory supporting land owner and therefore likely to be politically excluded and therefore not active. The point being it's not being poor that excludes you from politics but the social demographic you reside in. Simple fact is that SW London is hardly a working class area, poor people tend to be working class and therefore are likely to feel excluded in that area and therefore not active.

2. The audience on question time is often loaded with activists and lobbiests (sp?) put there in order to excite or stifle the debate. I would not say that the demographic on question time is indicative of the demographic that follow political discourse.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Housing benefit needs to be capped as it makes a far larger impact on society than child benefit - which is available to all and thus fair.

I live in Wimbledon, £400 housing benefit would pay for half my rent. Even if I moved to a reasonable nicer place in the same area I'd pay £1100, which £400 a month would take a juicy chunk out of.

The suggest cap for a 4 bedroom house is £400 a week, not a month. For a 2 bedroom flat the cap is £290 per month. So you would if you lost your job and had to claim be able to cover your rent in Wimbledon.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What is bizarre is that so many people have jobs yet receive benefits. That just seems bonkers to me. Wholescale reform is clearly required - but perhaps if tax credits, housing benefits etc were reduced, then employers would have no choice but to pay an actual "living wage" otherwise they will find themselves with no employees at all - because they couldn't afford to live near work, or commute? Maybe reform of minimum wages and/or revisions to the employment position of part-time workers would go hand in hand with changes to the welfare state so that if you are working, it is worth doing and you have some sort of protection even if you are part time?

We both know the highlighted does not work in practice.

Do we?

Yeah, take a look at any developing nation with poor worker legislation.

If people are desperate for any money at all, they will work for whatever they can get.

If that is a ridiculously small amount, it's better than nothing.

Without strict guidance (legislation), firms cannot be expected to be fair at their own expense.

There will always be people who are desperate enough to take on exploitative jobs. Things like minimum wages etc are there to stop those exploitative jobs existing.

But we're not a developing nation with poor worker legislation? If anything, the balance of power is increasingly in the employees favour. Have you ever tried to sack someone? It's an (expensive) minefield.

And we have strict guidance, and minimum wages, so I'm not sure I see your point?

BTW are you ever going to respond to my post on Norway?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

But we're not a developing nation with poor worker legislation? If anything, the balance of power is increasingly in the employees favour. Have you ever tried to sack someone? It's an (expensive) minefield.

And we have strict guidance, and minimum wages, so I'm not sure I see your point?

BTW are you ever going to respond to my post on Norway?

Seemed to me you were suggesting weaker legislation on minimum wages etc, and that market forces would dictate that they would stay high, in combination with a reduction in what benefits are available. I'm suggesting it wouldn't.

As for the Norway post - I've written 20,000 word essays on less!

Attempted it a couple times and realised I'd need an essay. In short, they have it right culturally and politically, and the assumption that Brits can't do what Norway does is false in theory, though you're probably right in practice. That's what I lament about this place.

Still doesn't mean it's not something to aspire to.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

But we're not a developing nation with poor worker legislation? If anything, the balance of power is increasingly in the employees favour. Have you ever tried to sack someone? It's an (expensive) minefield.

And we have strict guidance, and minimum wages, so I'm not sure I see your point?

BTW are you ever going to respond to my post on Norway?

Seemed to me you were suggesting weaker legislation on minimum wages etc, and that market forces would dictate that they would stay high, in combination with a reduction in what benefits are available. I'm suggesting it wouldn't.

As for the Norway post - I've written 20,000 word essays on less!

Attempted it a couple times and realised I'd need an essay. In short, they have it right culturally and politically, and the assumption that Brits can't do what Norway does is false in theory, though you're probably right in practice. That's what I lament about this place.

Still doesn't mean it's not something to aspire to.

Not really, what I was suggesting was having a system in place that means "that if you are working, it is worth doing and you have some sort of protection even if you are part time."

At least you read it - I feared that it had fallen through the cracks.

rick_chasey

I think on an individual level, it's difficult to see the case against the cap.

On a macro level, the cap might have a serious impact on the socio-economic make up and construction of our cities (mainly London).

And, like I said, the timing is surprising, from an economic perspective, and a party-political perspective.

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

On a macro level, the cap might have a serious impact on the socio-economic make up and construction of our cities (mainly London).

Hence we head back to the third post in the thread where we have people who support the artificial mixing of socio-economic groups via large subsidies and those who don't...

rjsterry

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On a macro level, the cap might have a serious impact on the socio-economic make up and construction of our cities (mainly London).

Hence we head back to the third post in the thread where we have people who support the artificial mixing of socio-economic groups via large subsidies and those who don't...

The problem is not so much that you will end up with areas of exclusively wealthy residents (although I think that is a problem for lots of reasons) but that there will corresponding areas of populated exclusively by people on benefits. Slums are generally reckoned to be a bad thing.

rick_chasey

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On a macro level, the cap might have a serious impact on the socio-economic make up and construction of our cities (mainly London).

Hence we head back to the third post in the thread where we have people who support the artificial mixing of socio-economic groups via large subsidies and those who don't...

You're making it out to be a binary decision between the two, and that the left takes one view and the right another.

I don't think it's like that, and it's not as clear cut as that.

And the mix of society is by nature pretty artificial and arbitrary anyway, so a discussion of 'artificially' affecting the otherwise 'natural' socio-economic mix is a bit of an excessive darwinian take on socio-economics.

Politically in the UK, the individual perspective is the one that is taken. "How does this affect you?" they rhetorically ask on the news. "how much do YOU give/take from the gov't".

I think, in this instance, the macro consequences are overlooked - particularly since they are a) more complicated and b) much slower and long term.

NSB has it right that, on an indivudual level, no-ones really disagreeing that getting social security which is larger than many salaries is incorrect. If anyone thinks that is in dispute has it wrong.

The solution is where the differences lie, and perhaps instances described above are more a symptom than a cause. That's where the argument really is, yet it doesn't seem to be cast like that, eithe in the media of the general discourse on it.

Where I stand - it's ultimately a macro policy, so the macro should be properly adressed. I don't think a cap does.

jds_1981

rjsterry wrote:

The problem is not so much that you will end up with areas of exclusively wealthy residents (although I think that is a problem for lots of reasons) but that there will corresponding areas of populated exclusively by people on benefits. Slums are generally reckoned to be a bad thing.

People on benefits, people in low paid jobs, people who are just starting their working career. That's not a slum. No-one is suggesting we move multiple families into houses with inadequate sanitation. Around most cities the cheaper housing is within commuting distance of jobs so it doesn't deprive people of that opportunity either. Straw man...

rick_chasey

jds_1981 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The problem is not so much that you will end up with areas of exclusively wealthy residents (although I think that is a problem for lots of reasons) but that there will corresponding areas of populated exclusively by people on benefits. Slums are generally reckoned to be a bad thing.

People on benefits, people in low paid jobs, people who are just starting their working career. That's not a slum. No-one is suggesting we move multiple families into houses with inadequate sanitation. Around most cities the cheaper housing is within commuting distance of jobs so it doesn't deprive people of that opportunity either. Straw man...

I think what rjs is referring to is what has occured in Paris and the banlieue.

That's a perenial problem in Paris that the politicians refuse to properly address.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think on an individual level, it's difficult to see the case against the cap.

On a macro level, the cap might have a serious impact on the socio-economic make up and construction of our cities (mainly London).

And, like I said, the timing is surprising, from an economic perspective, and a party-political perspective.

Real question.

Why must the 'poor and nonworking' be given the ability to live in expensive areas. When the hardworking are not afforded the same subsidies to do exactly the same.

What would really have a serious socio-economic impact on a city is making it more affordable to live, like a rent cap. I'm not seeing what benefit I or society as a whole gets by housing a bunch of low income famlies in Westminister. What sudden cultural explosion do you get?

What you cannot do is force feed the issue.

rjsterry

jds_1981 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The problem is not so much that you will end up with areas of exclusively wealthy residents (although I think that is a problem for lots of reasons) but that there will corresponding areas of populated exclusively by people on benefits. Slums are generally reckoned to be a bad thing.

People on benefits, people in low paid jobs, people who are just starting their working career. That's not a slum. No-one is suggesting we move multiple families into houses with inadequate sanitation. Around most cities the cheaper housing is within commuting distance of jobs so it doesn't deprive people of that opportunity either. Straw man...

Slum is possibly too emotive a word, I'll grant you. Sub standard housing is still a big problem, though, even when landlords are paid handsomely from HB. I would suggest that there is quite a risk that landlords deprived of their lucrative HB income will not suddenly come over all philanthropic. The commuting distance is not really the issue either: much is made of the negative effect of living in a family where two or more generations have never worked - lumping all these families together is unlikely to improve people's aspirations, is it?

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think on an individual level, it's difficult to see the case against the cap.

On a macro level, the cap might have a serious impact on the socio-economic make up and construction of our cities (mainly London).

And, like I said, the timing is surprising, from an economic perspective, and a party-political perspective.

Real question.

Why must the 'poor and nonworking' be given the ability to live in expensive areas. When the hardworking are not afforded the same subsidies to do exactly the same.

What would really have a serious socio-economic impact on a city is making it more affordable to live, like a rent cap. I'm not seeing what benefit I or society as a whole gets by housing a bunch of low income famlies in Westminister. What sudden cultural explosion do you get?

What you cannot do is force feed the issue.

Well, expensive areas are mainly typified by their location rather than the size or quality of the housing. When people talk about housing low income families in Central London they aren't referring to paying for Shazza and her 15 illegitimate children to live in a Chelsea mansion flat. Generally this is about locations like Latimer Road and Kings Cross which are incredibly expensive due to their central location, but where there is still quite a lot of social housing.

Personally, I think social housing in Zones 1-2 is a good thing. The alternative is that low income Londoners are forced out into sink estates on the far margins of the city which are cemeteries for aspiration. I'd imagine that poverty of aspiration is less likely to be hereditary for a young person growing up in Latimer Road neighbouring Notting Hill than it is for a counterpart in Haringey or Newham. And this is important because that makes them less likely to be reliant on government support than their parents when they reach adulthood. Thus encouraging them to be net contributors and giving society the best return on investment in them.

Of course the standard disclaimer applies that I don't support a benefit system that encourages the indolent poor....before anyone starts going on about rights and responsibilities and benefit scroungers thriving on handouts...

W1

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think on an individual level, it's difficult to see the case against the cap.

On a macro level, the cap might have a serious impact on the socio-economic make up and construction of our cities (mainly London).

And, like I said, the timing is surprising, from an economic perspective, and a party-political perspective.

Real question.

Why must the 'poor and nonworking' be given the ability to live in expensive areas. When the hardworking are not afforded the same subsidies to do exactly the same.

What would really have a serious socio-economic impact on a city is making it more affordable to live, like a rent cap. I'm not seeing what benefit I or society as a whole gets by housing a bunch of low income famlies in Westminister. What sudden cultural explosion do you get?

What you cannot do is force feed the issue.

Well, expensive areas are mainly typified by their location rather than the size or quality of the housing. When people talk about housing low income families in Central London they aren't referring to paying for Shazza and her 15 illegitimate children to live in a Chelsea mansion flat. Generally this is about locations like Latimer Road and Kings Cross which are incredibly expensive due to their central location, but where there is still quite a lot of social housing.

Personally, I think social housing in Zones 1-2 is a good thing. The alternative is that low income Londoners are forced out into sink estates on the far margins of the city which are cemeteries for aspiration. I'd imagine that poverty of aspiration is less likely to be hereditary for a young person growing up in Latimer Road neighbouring Notting Hill than it is for a counterpart in Haringey or Newham. And this is important because that makes them less likely to be reliant on government support than their parents when they reach adulthood. Thus encouraging them to be net contributors and giving society the best return on investment in them.

Of course the standard disclaimer applies that I don't support a benefit system that encourages the indolent poor....before anyone starts going on about rights and responsibilities and benefit scroungers thriving on handouts...

Social housing, yes. Privately rented housing (paid for by the taxpayer) at an uncapped amount? No. If people wish to live in expensive areas (which are, by their nature, better located or more pleasant) then they need to contribute somethingp to that. Hence why I support a cap in HB, even if it means that some people (who cannot afford, or do not want to compromise in order to be able to) need to move to smaller, cheaper places, or further, less pleasant areas.

The notion that £400 a week cap creates a slum ghetto is just hand-wringing. You'd realisitically need to be on £50k to have that sort of disposable income to pay rent - and people on £50k aren't living in slums.

I very much doubt that, in reality, the HB cap will force anyone out. Current HB landlords won't want vacant propoerties, so sill need to adjust their rents accordingly.

jedster

notsoblue,

I think you make a valid point about benefits to aspirations from having social housing / housing benefit in expensive areas but I still dont think it is justified. With all aspects of Government expenditure you have to think what else could be done with the money it it wasnt spend there.

We know we have a shortage of social housing in many areas not just the expensive ones. Just imagine how much capital could be released by selling blocks of social housing in say Chelsea for redevelopment. Imagine how many more people could benefit from quality social housing if that was reinvested in the outer zones of London? I know that a relatively small number of people benefit from being is state supported housing in Zone 1/2 but think how many more could benefit if the money was spent in outer London.

The other thing I would challenge is whether you really get any mixing in these upmarket areas. I lived on the edge of Hampstead for a number of years. 100 yards away was a big area of social housing. It could have been on another planet for the amount of interaction that went on.

I also think the totally arbitrary nature of who gets to live in the expensive areas at the tax-payers expense is unreasonable. I mean if most of the people who work in an area can't afford to live there, is it really right for the state to pay for people who dont work to live there? I dont think so.

jds_1981

rjsterry wrote:

Slum is possibly too emotive a word, I'll grant you. Sub standard housing is still a big problem, though, even when landlords are paid handsomely from HB. I would suggest that there is quite a risk that landlords deprived of their lucrative HB income will not suddenly come over all philanthropic. The commuting distance is not really the issue either: much is made of the negative effect of living in a family where two or more generations have never worked - lumping all these families together is unlikely to improve people's aspirations, is it?

Separate issues: -

1) Rental accommodation standards. I believe there isn't enough protection around this in general. I currently rent a flat which has serious issues with damp which has not been dealt with properly by the landlord. I investigated reporting to the council to get them to deal with it but haven't as I realised that if the council thought it below par and forced the agency to fix all that would happen to me is I'd be served notice as they wouldn't be able to resolve properly with residents.

2) Perhaps has truth, but suburbs would still be a mix of people and I suspect you think too little of the unemployed and benefit claimants which does cover a wide range of people. This should be studied more and investigated on whether it is a problem and what can be done to effectively alleviate. Massively subsidising housing rents in the hope that it might cause a few people to have aspirations isn't a good solution and doesn't come under 'SMART' criteria.

rjsterry

I'm unconvinced that landlords that specialise in letting to HB claimants will willingly accept a big drop in their income. They're more likely to switch back to private lettings and turf the HB claimants out.

Zooming out a bit, IDS seems to be using the 'strong public support' argument to allow him to ignore the DWP's own study, which predicts increased homelessness (something that local authorities will have to pick up) and disruption to the schooling of children affected.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

I'm unconvinced that landlords that specialise in letting to HB claimants will willingly accept a big drop in their income. They're more likely to switch back to private lettings and turf the HB claimants out.

Possibly, but do you think private renters are going to be happy paying more than the government cap? Particularly when you follow the logic through and suddenly lots of properties are available in an area where all the HB tenants have been kicked out. Knowing what a landlord could get maximum from HB kind of sets a rent cap on private properties, don't you think? If I was looking for a rented property in an area where because of the HB cap lot of properties had become available I'd be negotiating at or near the cap. In this circumstance rather than risk an empty property I would expect the landlord to accept the lower rent. Also find me a private tenant happy to pay more the £400 a week in London for 4 bedroom house that would be ready to step in and rent the property vacated by the HB tenant. It's a very small number of families in that situation. If you have the amount of money chances are your paying a mortgage with it.

DonDaddyD

Recently look at property to rent in Wimbledon. Quite a number of adverts stating specifically, "No housing benefits".

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm unconvinced that landlords that specialise in letting to HB claimants will willingly accept a big drop in their income. They're more likely to switch back to private lettings and turf the HB claimants out.

Possibly, but do you think private renters are going to be happy paying more than the government cap? Particularly when you follow the logic through and suddenly lots of properties are available in an area where all the HB tenants have been kicked out. Knowing what a landlord could get maximum from HB kind of sets a rent cap on private properties, don't you think? If I was looking for a rented property in an area where because of the HB cap lot of properties had become available I'd be negotiating at or near the cap. In this circumstance rather than risk an empty property I would expect the landlord to accept the lower rent. Also find me a private tenant happy to pay more the £400 a week in London for 4 bedroom house that would be ready to step in and rent the property vacated by the HB tenant. It's a very small number of families in that situation. If you have the amount of money chances are your paying a mortgage with it.

You've not tried to rent recently then? A colleague has had to move out of a shared rented flat in Clapham (about £1500 a month for a 2-bed in a pretty mixed area IIRC) and on the first day that the flat went on the market they had 10 viewings. £1600 a month for a 4-bed house? I can't find lower than that inside a 5 mile radius of Westminster (i.e. Z1&2) even if you are flat sharing. EDIT: make that a 10 mile radius (using findaproperty)

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I'm unconvinced that landlords that specialise in letting to HB claimants will willingly accept a big drop in their income. They're more likely to switch back to private lettings and turf the HB claimants out.

Zooming out a bit, IDS seems to be using the 'strong public support' argument to allow him to ignore the DWP's own study, which predicts increased homelessness (something that local authorities will have to pick up) and disruption to the schooling of children affected.

Since when were studies and inquiries taken seriously by policy makers?

They're used to put hot potato issues into touch for a more convenient time.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Recently look at property to rent in Wimbledon. Quite a number of adverts stating specifically, "No housing benefits".

That's been going on for years nothing to do with the cap.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm unconvinced that landlords that specialise in letting to HB claimants will willingly accept a big drop in their income. They're more likely to switch back to private lettings and turf the HB claimants out.

Possibly, but do you think private renters are going to be happy paying more than the government cap? Particularly when you follow the logic through and suddenly lots of properties are available in an area where all the HB tenants have been kicked out. Knowing what a landlord could get maximum from HB kind of sets a rent cap on private properties, don't you think? If I was looking for a rented property in an area where because of the HB cap lot of properties had become available I'd be negotiating at or near the cap. In this circumstance rather than risk an empty property I would expect the landlord to accept the lower rent. Also find me a private tenant happy to pay more the £400 a week in London for 4 bedroom house that would be ready to step in and rent the property vacated by the HB tenant. It's a very small number of families in that situation. If you have the amount of money chances are your paying a mortgage with it.

You've not tried to rent recently then? A colleague has had to move out of a shared rented flat in Clapham (about £1500 a month for a 2-bed in a pretty mixed area IIRC) and on the first day that the flat went on the market they had 10 viewings. £1600 a month for a 4-bed house? I can't find lower than that inside a 5 mile radius of Westminster (i.e. Z1&2) even if you are flat sharing. EDIT: make that a 10 mile radius (using findaproperty)

Right move search. Westminster + 10 miles, 4 bed minimum, no more that £1750PCM - 79! pages of results

Change it to 5 miles - 13 pages of results

3 miles - 2 pages

1 mile - no pages

rjsterry

That's odd, are you filtering out the flat shares? They show up as '4-bed' even when there are less than 4 rooms available (at least on findaproperty).

sketchley

They are 100% there to rent right now and my point is once you have a HB cap more will become available. As private landlords push rents up knowing that HB tenants will take them and claim knowing HB will pay out. A HB tenant does not care what the landlord is charging as they don't pay, if the landlord puts up the rent they just claim more. In my head it's perfectly clear that the HB cap in London will result in lower rents, lower house prices and the only people that will lose are private landlords. Maybe there are a few people in completely the wrong property for there needs think £10kpw mansions in Chelsea. But these will be in the minority.

notsoblue

Yeah, lets trust the market to bring down rents in London.

Hah!

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

They are 100% there to rent right now

Sorry to be a pedant, but I've just done the search on Rightmove and there are four 4-bed houses below £400pw and within 10 miles of Westminster, all house shares - i.e. not family homes. Even the Croydon house is £450pcm
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/Westminster.html?sortByPriceDescending=false&sortByRelevance=false&maxPrice=1750&minBedrooms=4&radius=10.0

and my point is once you have a HB cap more will become available. As private landlords push rents up knowing that HB tenants will take them and claim knowing HB will pay out. A HB tenant does not care what the landlord is charging as they don't pay, if the landlord puts up the rent they just claim more. In my head it's perfectly clear that the HB cap in London will result in lower rents, lower house prices and the only people that will lose are private landlords. Maybe there are a few people in completely the wrong property for there needs think £10kpw mansions in Chelsea. But these will be in the minority.

About 215,000 households receive HB in London, most of these already in the poorer areas of north and east London. relatively few live in Fulham, Westminster or K&C (just over 30,000 between them). Rents in these areas are being kept high by lack of supply, not HB.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

They are 100% there to rent right now

Sorry to be a pedant, but I've just done the search on Rightmove and there are four 4-bed houses below £400pw and within 10 miles of Westminster, all house shares - i.e. not family homes. Even the Croydon house is £450pcm
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/Westminster.html?sortByPriceDescending=false&sortByRelevance=false&maxPrice=1750&minBedrooms=4&radius=10.0

There are 79 pages of results on that link!

rjsterry wrote:

and my point is once you have a HB cap more will become available. As private landlords push rents up knowing that HB tenants will take them and claim knowing HB will pay out. A HB tenant does not care what the landlord is charging as they don't pay, if the landlord puts up the rent they just claim more. In my head it's perfectly clear that the HB cap in London will result in lower rents, lower house prices and the only people that will lose are private landlords. Maybe there are a few people in completely the wrong property for there needs think £10kpw mansions in Chelsea. But these will be in the minority.

About 215,000 households receive HB in London, most of these already in the poorer areas of north and east London. relatively few live in Fulham, Westminster or K&C (just over 30,000 between them). Rents in these areas are being kept high by lack of supply, not HB.

But doesn't this just prove the point that most people on HB will not be affected by the cap so therefore the it doesn't matter. Only a few people will be affected those living in very expensive areas with high demand, however as the search above show they would not have to move very far.