Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
This has been done before on here, but I'm still none the wiser. If the council owns a house (rather than a private landlord) and Mr Jones has been living in the house for the last 30 years, how does that affect Mr Smith's ability to find a place to live or the rent he has to pay?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I was simply trying to suggest a way of incentivising landlords to keep rents low, by providing a tax break to keep rents at a certain level.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't think Stoker has any right to have the rent paid for an eight-bedroomed palace in stockbroker belt either, but it makes sense to pay that rather than expect him to move at his own expense to accomodation more befitting his reduced circumstances, as these may be temporary. It's a utilitarian thing, for the most part.

---

So if one of these rich bankers whom all the lefties so despise should finally get his comeuppance and be left without job or income, you think the government should step in to pay the rent on his massive house?

Yeah, I can see that going down well.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But must the taxpayer pay for Stoker to live in such expensive accommodation? Putting another way, what right has Stoker to insist on living somewhere at the taxpayer's expense that's too expensive for the taxpayer to live?

---

Now and again (and again) we are inclined to forget that taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed!

I don't think Stoker has any right to have the rent paid for an eight-bedroomed palace in stockbroker belt either, but it makes sense to pay that rather than expect him to move at his own expense to accomodation more befitting his reduced circumstances, as these may be temporary. It's a utilitarian thing, for the most part.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But must the taxpayer pay for Stoker to live in such expensive accommodation? Putting another way, what right has Stoker to insist on living somewhere at the taxpayer's expense that's too expensive for the taxpayer to live?

---

Depends how many kids he has, where his friends and other family are.

---

quote:

---

Before this dreadful government, it was already the case that NEW claims only paid enough rent to suit the person e.g. if a single person claimed fort a 2 bedroomed flat, s/he only got the price of one-bedroomed flat and was expected to move or pay extra.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
... No-one has the 'right' to live in the same area all their lives - we all have to go where the work is, where the housing is that we can afford (or, if we are asking taxpayers to pay for our housing, where the taxpayer can afford), etc. If either or both ain't there, then we can't afford to live there. I don't see why one group of us should be exempt from that basic fact at the -literal - expense of the rest of us.

---

The problem my town has is that the work is where no one can afford to live, result being a labour shortage. Because of inaction at every other level of government, the city has stepped in to support more affordable housing for people that they want to stay in the city: paramedics, nurses, firefighters, police, city engineering employees, etc. Lots of small service businesses have a hard time finding staff - no one is going to commute 2 hours each way for a 4 hour shift. So if the taxpayers want functional cities and economies, they'll want to make sure there is a range of housing available for every level of income and employment and type of household. OliviaG

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Before this dreadful government, it was already the case that NEW claims only paid enough rent to suit the person e.g. if a single person claimed fort a 2 bedroomed flat, s/he only got the price of one-bedroomed flat and was expected to move or pay extra.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tina:
c) is generally paid to landlords, not into the 'scrounger's' hands.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Businesses will typically in such situations relocate to where labour is cheaper; one of the factors driving their labour costs down is cheaper housing. Add to that the fact that there is quite a bit of social housing building going on - certainly round my way which is fairly expensive in terms of housing, and is one of the few things, together with the sort of clients referred to above, that is keeping my ailing conveyancing practice going - and these things tend to even out relatively quickly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I was simply trying to suggest a way of incentivising landlords to keep rents low, by providing a tax break to keep rents at a certain level.

---

Ah yes, seen this one before. Incentivise the poor by paying them less, incentivise the rich by taxing them less. Different stimuli for the same response. Thus demonstrating that they really are different species. Or something. Really, there's nothing new under the sun... did anyone say 'entitlement mentality'?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Before this dreadful government, it was already the case that NEW claims only paid enough rent to suit the person e.g. if a single person claimed fort a 2 bedroomed flat, s/he only got the price of one-bedroomed flat and was expected to move or pay extra.

---

Let me get this straight.

If someone who has never worked or contributed to society is living in a 3-bed house, they should have the absolute right to stay there regardless of the cost because that's where their family and friends are.

But if someone in the same house has worked all their life and falls on hard times, they have to sell up and move to a one-bed flat regardless of whether their family and friends live nearby or not?

You can understand why people get resentful when they see that government will give thousands of pounds of support to people who've never given anything back, but if they fall on hard times they'll be stripped of everything they have and left in a scummy bedsit.

If we can't afford to live near our family and friends we just have to bite the bullet and move to somewhere we can afford. We don't get any help to enable us to live where we like. Where's the fairness in that?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But must the taxpayer pay for Stoker to live in such expensive accommodation? Putting another way, what right has Stoker to insist on living somewhere at the taxpayer's expense that's too expensive for the taxpayer to live?

---

Now and again (and again) we are inclined to forget that taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed!

I don't think Stoker has any right to have the rent paid for an eight-bedroomed palace in stockbroker belt either, but it makes sense to pay that rather than expect him to move at his own expense to accomodation more befitting his reduced circumstances, as these may be temporary. It's a utilitarian thing, for the most part.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Course everyone pays tax, including the unemployed and homeless - for some reason whenever people start bandying around the term taxpayer, they always mean income tax payer.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
What's behind my angst is the expectation that a lot of people have and not just about housing. The culture is one of a demand that the state will provide and taking offence when it is pointed out that in fact maybe the state shouldn't provide as much as you think. If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
What's behind my angst is the expectation that a lot of people have and not just about housing. The culture is one of a demand that the state will provide and taking offence when it is pointed out that in fact maybe the state shouldn't provide as much as you think. If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.

---

I'm assuming you're single and if you were redundant would be able to move in with family or friends. If you had no alternative accommodation you wouldn't get much in the way of support anyway - something in the region of £65 a week unemployment benefit plus a fixed amount of housing benefit to pay for one-bedroomed accommodation. If you were below a certain age - it used to be 26 but it's over 30 now, you'd get housing benefit for a bedsit in a shared house. If you'd rather sleep on the streets that would be your choice.

It's a completely different situation for people with children. If parents haven't the means to support their children what are they supposed to do? Abandon their children? Seriously, what do you think should happen to children whose parents haven't the means to pay for adequate housing?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
As a parent with three children who has been made redundant and relied on housing benefit I'll tell you what you do. Move to a cheaper area if you cannot find work to pay for your house after the 9 month 'grace period'. That is surely enough time to decide if you can afford to stay in an area, or move if you cannot. It is difficult, but people move to take new jobs all the time.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
As a parent with three children who has been made redundant and relied on housing benefit I'll tell you what you do. Move to a cheaper area if you cannot find work to pay for your house after the 9 month 'grace period'. That is surely enough time to decide if you can afford to stay in an area, or move if you cannot. It is difficult, but people move to take new jobs all the time.

---

So you rely on housing benefit. And if you can't find a job even after moving you still rely on housing benefit. Or, more to the point, your children rely on it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:

So you rely on housing benefit. And if you can't find a job even after moving you still rely on housing benefit. Or, more to the point, your children rely on it.

---

Yes - at a level that is appropriate.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
The number of children in a family, their ages and sex will determine how many bedrooms are needed and the cost of providing enough bedrooms will determine an appropriate level for housing benefit.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
The number of children in a family, their ages and sex will determine how many bedrooms are needed and the cost of providing enough bedrooms will determine an appropriate level for housing benefit.

---

There's another fact that determines how much a house costs (and thus the level of housing benefit) - location. The key part of ianjmatt's post was "Move to a cheaper area if you cannot find work to pay for your house after the 9 month 'grace period'."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
'Cheaper' is still relative. A large family in a cheaper area may still need a level of housing benefit higher than an average mortgage payment for that area.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Precisely. Same as everyone else has to. Plus, if there are better job opportunities elsewhere, you also go where the work is.

The basic point is one of fairness: a cap of £26000pa grossed up amounts to a figure of approx £35000. That has been my earnings for the last two plus years. There is therefore no way in a million years that I could afford housing costs of £26000pa, so - der! - I don't live somewhere where my housing costs are that high. For the record, I have wife and three children, so relocation would not be as easy as it would if I was on my own, but it can still be done. I don't see a jot and tittle of fairness why money should be taken from me to pay for someone to live somewhere where I can't afford to live myself.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

if there are better job opportunities elsewhere, you also go where the work is.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, don't assume that we all have the same view as Stoker.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Matt:

quote:

---

if there are better job opportunities elsewhere, you also go where the work is.

---

Several people have said this, and also said unemployed people should move to areas where housing is cheaper.

Setting aside the question of how to fulfil these incompatible objectives simultaneously (because housing is generally more expensive in areas of low unemployment), moving is not as easy as it sounds. Jenn has already pointed out that if you are in council housing you do not have an automatic right to be housed by another council, so you would either have to find another council tenant to swap with (easier to say than do)

---

quote:

---

If you own a house you have to sell it or rent it out to someone else before you move, neither of which can happen overnight. In fact if you start trying to sell your house at the beginning of your nine-month so-called 'grace period' you'll be lucky to get everything completed by the end of it. My parents have been trying to sell their house for several years; every time they think they've done it the chain falls apart and they have to start again.

---

quote:

---

Besides, moving is expensive unless you can fit all your worldly possessions in the family car or can borrow a van from a friend. Last time we moved it cost us several thousand pounds in lawyers' fees and removal van hire.

---

quote:

---

It's not something you would do on the offchance of finding work in the area you're moving to; you move to a new area *after* you've got the new, highly lucrative job.

---

quote:

---

And job-hunting costs money, too. A lot of employers and recruitment agencies have stopped paying travelling expenses for candidates to attend interviews.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't know what difference it makes, but on the info you've given here about your family and income, from a quick and dirty calculation, if you were renting you would actually be entitled to Housing Benefit of up to about £90 a week, depending on whereabouts in Hampshire you live.

---

quote:

---

Matt Black
Well, I guess that's nice to know, but I still think it would be unfair on the rest of you to have to stump up for us to continue to live in the manner to which we have become accustomed when there is perfectly adequate but cheaper accommodation to rent available locally.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:

Children are not 'scroungers'. Children are not 'workless'. But they get included when politicians talk about 'workless families' and the popular press talks about families who rely on benefit as 'scroungers'.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but that would be in the cheaper accommodation, not maintaining us in our 3-bed detached house in its semi-rural location.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

You need to find new lawyers! The standard rate I charge is £540 on a sale and £550 on a purchase.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It could be that renting a three bedroomed terraced house would still cost more than the mortgage on your present home and that you might need to claim some housing benefit.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
It might not be your point but it is Stoker's point.

quote:

---

If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.

---

Stoker favours a system where if he had a wife and three children and was made redundant there would be no benefit available to house his family.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
So about £900 rent against £1036 mortgage? Not a huge difference, although the DSS would want to keep costs as low as possible if they have a lot of families to house. I bet your house is about twice the size of the three-bedroom semi, as well.

---

quote:

---

I realise you're all talking about private rented accommodation, but it's all part of the bigger problem of shortage of housing. If only somebody would listen to Sioni Sais' suggestion and allow the councils to get back into the business of providing social housing directly, we (the taxpayers) could save a fortune. Any profits on renting it out that weren't needed to maintain the properties could go into the general budget and be spent on useful stuff such as social care, or Surestart programmes, or libraries... you know, the things that are being cut back because there's no money for them.

---