ConDem Housing Policy?

[HallieA]

Hmm, maybe. The economy is a hugely complex system, it's damned near impossible to forecast how such a big change would impact it long term. Taxing the crap out of inheritance, however, would probably not affect motivation as badly, whilst still preventing an ever increasing wealth divide.


Agreed.

True enough.

Retirees would, presumably, have contributed in the past.

Agreed, this is absolutely my preferred mechanism for welfare.

 

[LILmermaid]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018926

Take at read at the link and I'm pretty sure you can start to answer your own question.

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/uk-welfare-spending-in-one-easy-graph.html

Just another interesting link.

 

[jmanadab]

Vouchers sound like a great idea. But vouchers carry an additional cost. It's like printing money. You're vouchers will have to be designed in such a way to make them hard to counterfeit. And of course every counterfeit voucher that slips through adds even more cost when it's value is reimbursed to the bearer. At the end of the day it could turn out to be far more costly.

The problem of welfare abuse is far more complex than replacing cash payments with vouchers.

 

[GrantO]

That was not an answer at all . How is it easier to get/abuse? If you are entitled you get it, if you are not, you don't.

 

[realskydiver]

Just something I'd like to mention, and taking only one simplistic aspect of the benefit scheme - they're apparently planning to cap it at £400/week.

Now it's worth noting that I'm on a fairly reasonable wage. I support myself and a housemate on substantially less than £400/week, working full time and working hard for that matter. I find it very hard to argue that the cap, if nothing else, on housing benefit, is unfair.

£400/week is £20800/year, untaxed, to pay for housing and ignoring any other benefits that may be included. If anyone can argue that a maximum cap which is over the supposed 'living' wage is unfair, please do so.

 

[sushi_luver]

The £400 per week thing really is the minority of large families in high rent areas. Example point being that in Birmingham suburbs the maximum for a family with 3 children is around £140 a week (private sector), and that is the maximum, not a certainty.

Also saying you support youself and your flatmate on less than £400 a week is not really comparable to a family with 3 children living in a city centre area. Rents can and do fetch into the thousands per month.

 

[turdhurler]

Given that I rent a three bedroom house, with enough space for at least four kids if necessary and within walking/cycling distance of the nearest town, and cheap bussing distance of the nearest city, I'd say it's fairly comparable. I also don't exactly live a restrained lifestyle, and if I did could comfortably afford a larger place.

Still not seeing how £400 a month can be seen as a low cap, or unreasonable.

 

[jasonjas]

OK. Perhaps the simplest way of cheating on this type of benefit is not to declare changes in your circumstances.

 

[Reet]]

I can't say that I can find fault with that. I live in a 2 bed room semi-detached council house with front and back gardens that costs me £60.21 a week. £400 per week if that is what it is, is very generous.

 

[crasx]

So because you do not live in a high rent area and rent a house with 3 bedrooms whilst having a few nights out, that equates with a family of six who do live in a high rent area and rent a 3 bed house and have to buy uniforms for 3 children and pay for transport costs to get kids to school and themselves to work coupled with higher insurance costs and a general cost of living. That is without the fact that 4 children will triple your shopping bill for food and need new clothes at least once but more like three times a year.

Just google house rental in london, Starts at around £340 a week up to £550 ish.

 

[MelindaG]

There is available work in my area. There is cheap public transport in my area. There are schools in my area within walking/cycling distance. There is the opportunity to move.

My sister and brother-in-law earn only a little more than me, live within one of the most expensive areas of the commuter belt, have two children, receive only child benefit and manage to get by quite comfortably.

So yes, it does equate.

 

[MaddyB]

The £400 a week cap is not really ever going to apply to coucil renting, it will be used by the private sector.

See my above post and bear in mind that the government has not built anywhere enough housing for us lot for years, in-fact they have been selling it off to tenants and to associations and businesses.

So the waiting lists are years long and there are less and less council accomodation. The choices then become private rental or mortgage.

If you are lucky enough to actually have a council house with gardens then think about if you lived in a tower block with no gardens, noise 24/7, lifts full of piss and excrement (human), needles on the stairs, constant leaks from flats above, dogs roaming the stairwells. Would you prefer that to renting privately to provide a better existence for you and your family? Or would you say no on the principle that you couldn't afford it and it is unfair on the rest of the country if they supplement you via housing benefit?

 

[PhillipH]

Wait, I'm not faulting anyone for taking the housing benefit, particularly in the case where they believe it will give their kids a better life, I'm just saying that I find it very, very hard to say that a £400/week cap is somehow unfair or disproportionate.

I've just had a look at rents in London, £400 a week will get you a four or five bedroom house in many parts of London. Unfortunately the site I was searching with won't allow looking for more than a five bedroom house.

Please, tell me how a cap which covers the rent on a big house in London is somehow unfair or limiting?

 

[CarloT]

When you have 3 children, come back and tell me how that works out for you.
Not all schools are equal and travelling may be more important if it means a better educational chance.

Your sister and brother-in-law work for basic wage and pay full (private) rent and council tax, provide for two children with nothing more than £420 a week? they must be living it up.

 

[TheJode]

I never said the cap was unfair per se.

I think people hear that the HB is being capped at £400 a week and somehow think that that figure is applicable to all claimants in private and council properties, all across the country when it will only be applicable to the smallest minority of famillies in the most expensive private sector housing. The property search i did was showing 2 and 3 bed houses for £500 a week. Thats a rent of £26000 a year plus council tax, rates, insurance and living costs.

 

[alvint]

All I was trying to say is that I don't think the cap is unreasonable or unfair.

 

[skadanks]

No, they're not. They struggle and have difficulties at times. Occasionally, when I can, I try to help them out.

But they don't get to claim benefit, because they're apparently too well off. Meanwhile there are people claiming more than they earn in housing benefit, and getting other benefits on top of that, which my sister and her husband have to pay taxes towards. I find it very, very difficult not to support a cap on housing benefit to a more reasonable level.

 

[strangeriniowa]

Horses for courses though isn't it. Your sisters situation is a lot different to mine which is different to my sisters ad-nauseum. The cap is a way to remove the low earners from the elite areas of big cities. There can be no other motive as it will only affect these groups.
Regarding your sisters situation. How would they cope if they had no family or friends to help out in times of trouble? This is what makes people work less and claim more, they essentially have a financial incentive to do that. It is all backwards in that respect and i welcome the ideal of making work more attractive than benefits, but you can't achieve that by removing the benefits, that will just revert us back a 100+ years to when the poor were left to die of starvation and illness.

 

[jbarr40]

Which is a very small, limited group. I'm curious as to why they live in such ridiculously overpriced areas (particularly somewhere like London, where getting around is actually very easy) when moving to a cheaper area would most likely provide better opportunities all around.

They would probably just about manage, but I agree that this is the flaw in the system. There should be no financial incentive to not work.

I still think a system whereby either the essentials were paid for (housing, food, library membership, internet access, water) and no extras were given without work, or where vouchers for the essentials and a limited number of luxuries (where luxury is defined as an occasional pint down the pub, ticket to the cinema once a week, etc) were provided and spending was not possible on anything else.

Edit: Obviously in this system you would have a downwards sliding scale of benefits as work increased, at say £1 less benefits provided for every £1.50 of income earned, so you have a net gain for every hour of work you do. Awkward system, I know, but I've not sat down and thought about how the details would work yet.

 

[LeslieM]

The system you describe is, more or less, already in place re the loss of about £1 in benefits for every £1.50 earned.

Using me as an example, I am a driver by trade and can usually (before all of the country went belly up) earn circa ~£8 an hour. I have had no luck in finding any driving work for about 18 months (other than the odd few days here and there via agencies). Almost all of the other job oppotunities that present themselves for me (no other experience to shout about) is a basic wage job cleaning or stacking shelves or shop work etc. If i was to work a 40 hour week on basic wage, I would have an extra £45 a week after the benefits are reduced and extra payments to cover the change (rent & council tax) are calculated.
Now £45 a week extra is not to be sniffed at, however this is a false figure. When i calculate in travel costs, clothing allowance, and extra food (depending on how physical the job is) and then factor the loss of free prescriptions, dental visits, passport to leisure discounts at the leisure centre this figure is closer to an extra £15 a week.
Not a lot of incentive to get out of bed and work a 40 hour week in a job i would detest.
If the work meant an actual extra £45 a week after all the extra outgoings I would grit my teeth and bare it until i can find work in my vocation again.