UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Yeah, but Newham council didn't just want them to move to a cheaper borough, it wanted them to move to fucking STOKE ON TRENT which is 160 miles away!
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
quote:
The 'scroungers' of your title won't be seeing any of the money anyway - it will all go straight to landlords, some of them already immensely rich of course. You should really be asking why taxpayers money is going to those people.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:It's all very well saying that if you are choosing to move to a new area. What about people who have lived in a particular area all their lives? They didn't ask for rents to be forced up.
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
quote:Hang on. Are you suggesting that employers are offering jobs in an area of known high rents at a rate that means people who might take those jobs can't afford to live nearby, so that they're required to claim for housing benefit?
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
quote:But to what extent have those rents risen due to councils setting their price caps at the median price rather than the lowest? As soon as the landlords demanding lower rents see that the council will happily pay more, they're inevitably going to increase their charges to take advantage of the fact - as you say, it's free money. That pushes the median rent up even higher, which in turn pushes up the amount councils are happy to pay and thus the cost of renting.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
the people who have forced the rents up are landlords, who are also scroungers - at least to the extent that they're getting paid not for doing any work, but merely from owning a set of title deeds.
quote:Oh blimey, there is enough congestion in the Stoke on Trent area as it is....
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yeah, but Newham council didn't just want them to move to a cheaper borough, it wanted them to move to fucking STOKE ON TRENT which is 160 miles away!
quote:Good idea - let's see if the local corner shop is happy paying £60K a year for its staff. I'm guessing that is the minimum going rate to support a family in Kensington or similar.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Hang on. Are you suggesting that employers are offering jobs in an area of known high rents at a rate that means people who might take those jobs can't afford to live nearby, so that they're required to claim for housing benefit?
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
That's an outrage. We should force employers to pay a living wage rather than subsidising their poverty-wages.
quote:But it must be obvious that this situation is unsustainable, unless either -
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Good idea - let's see if the local corner shop is happy paying £60K a year for its staff. I'm guessing that is the minimum going rate to support a family in Kensington or similar.
quote:Then an awful lot of work that relies of low pay won't get done. Not merely cleaners and shop workers but teachers, nurses, transport workers: the entire infrastructure that The City relies on.
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:Good idea - let's see if the local corner shop is happy paying £60K a year for its staff. I'm guessing that is the minimum going rate to support a family in Kensington or similar.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Hang on. Are you suggesting that employers are offering jobs in an area of known high rents at a rate that means people who might take those jobs can't afford to live nearby, so that they're required to claim for housing benefit?
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
That's an outrage. We should force employers to pay a living wage rather than subsidising their poverty-wages.
Seriously - some places are expensive to live. If you can't afford to live there, live somewhere else. Yes people need help , but above a reasonable amount, it is time to move if you can't afford it.
quote:Er...so? 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.
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:It's all very well saying that if you are choosing to move to a new area. What about people who have lived in a particular area all their lives? They didn't ask for rents to be forced up.
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
quote:I'll suggest yet again something that would help. There are something like 930,000 empty homes in the UK including about 300,000 that have been empty for more than six months. The overall total includes nearly 75,000 in the London area.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But to what extent have those rents risen due to councils setting their price caps at the median price rather than the lowest? As soon as the landlords demanding lower rents see that the council will happily pay more, they're inevitably going to increase their charges to take advantage of the fact - as you say, it's free money. That pushes the median rent up even higher, which in turn pushes up the amount councils are happy to pay and thus the cost of renting.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
the people who have forced the rents up are landlords, who are also scroungers - at least to the extent that they're getting paid not for doing any work, but merely from owning a set of title deeds.
It's a vicious cycle which leads to massive inflation and thus prices poorer people (and, eventually, councils) out of the market. I'm not sure that a perfect solution exists, but the council moving to a strategy of setting their price cap at a lower level should at least slow down the inflation. If landlords can no longer get tenants they will have to either lower their prices or sell their uneconomical properties, both of which options will result in more homes available to people with more limited means.
quote:(b) is the mechanism by which (c) happens. Or a mechanism by which it happens, at any rate.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But it must be obvious that this situation is unsustainable, unless either -
a. Some low-paid workers receive subsidies to live in Kensington;
b. All Kensington corner-shops and similar enterprises are shut down.
ETA: or c. Kensington rates are driven aggressively downwards.
quote:Absolutely. I'm not suggesting that my proposed solution is the only solution in any way - and if the councils bought all those houses, renovated them and then acted as the landlord themselves it could lead to massive cost savings down the line.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll suggest yet again something that would help. There are something like 930,000 empty homes in the UK including about 300,000 that have been empty for more than six months. The overall total includes nearly 75,000 in the London area.
Sort that out, provide jobs for tens of thousand and homes for about a million. If there's a free market the extra homes ought to drive rents and purchase prices down.
quote:Why should private landlords (many of whom are doing very nicely out of the housing market) be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of the populace simply because they derive their wealth from rents instead of a salary? Landlords are allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the house (including the cost of any mortgage payments) against the rent and are only charged tax on the profit they make, just like any other owner of a business. If you were not previously aware of this and have a spare property to rent out I suggest you take a look at the HMRC website for more details. Having tenants in a house is almost always better than leaving it empty.
At the moment all rent is classed as income if you are a private landlord and taxed accordingly which incentivises keeping them high to offset the tax. Maybe classing it separately with an incentive to keep rents low would work.
quote:I know exactly how the tax system works, thanks.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why should private landlords (many of whom are doing very nicely out of the housing market) be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of the populace simply because they derive their wealth from rents instead of a salary? Landlords are allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the house (including the cost of any mortgage payments) against the rent and are only charged tax on the profit they make, just like any other owner of a business. If you were not previously aware of this and have a spare property to rent out I suggest you take a look at the HMRC website for more details. Having tenants in a house is almost always better than leaving it empty.
quote:Hang on a minute.
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:I know exactly how the tax system works, thanks.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why should private landlords (many of whom are doing very nicely out of the housing market) be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of the populace simply because they derive their wealth from rents instead of a salary? Landlords are allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the house (including the cost of any mortgage payments) against the rent and are only charged tax on the profit they make, just like any other owner of a business. If you were not previously aware of this and have a spare property to rent out I suggest you take a look at the HMRC website for more details. Having tenants in a house is almost always better than leaving it empty.
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. This would be a more cost use of taxpayers money than paying huge amounts of housing benefit to the same landlords.
quote:Now and again (and again) we are inclined to forget that taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed!
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?
quote:You seem to have fixated on the wrong bit. I was talking about both getting empty properties let AND getting current rents down.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]Hang on a minute.
If one owns or is buying a house there are two ways in which you gain
i) somewhere to live or rental income
ii) a capital gain as the house price increases
OK, rental income is taxed but costs of repairs are deductable, unlike putting a roof on one's own abode. A capital gain is taxed when it is realised.
Why anyone should leave anywhere empty beats me. We don't have the wild and woolly 1976 Rent Act any more. Hell, squatters have better tenure than shorthold tenants, so it pays every way to let rather than leave empty.
quote:Yup, my mistake. I expect the devil will all be in the detail and who will set the cap? Balancing the interest of landlords and tenants when there is a (sometimes artificial) housing shortage will be like a lasting peace in the Middle East.
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:You seem to have fixated on the wrong bit. I was talking about both getting empty properties let AND getting current rents down.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]Hang on a minute.
If one owns or is buying a house there are two ways in which you gain
i) somewhere to live or rental income
ii) a capital gain as the house price increases
OK, rental income is taxed but costs of repairs are deductable, unlike putting a roof on one's own abode. A capital gain is taxed when it is realised.
Why anyone should leave anywhere empty beats me. We don't have the wild and woolly 1976 Rent Act any more. Hell, squatters have better tenure than shorthold tenants, so it pays every way to let rather than leave empty.
I agree - it may be more beneficial to rent an empty property, but my main point on the tax incentives is that by offering a tax break to keep rent within a certain amount (which should be similar to a housing benefit cap) is better use of taxpayers money and benefits all tenants in the area.
quote:£21,000 a year in rent is £1750 a month. Renting even a single room in a shared flat in London can cost £200 a week or more (= £800 a month or £9600 a year) - and that's only one room, never mind a whole flat. On that basis, while it sounds a lot, I don't find it difficult to believe that £21,000 is the likely annual rent for a three-bedroom house somewhere in the London area.
Originally posted by Stoker:
I don't think I actually know anybody who spends £21,000 on accommodation per year.
quote:Depends how many kids he has, where his friends and other family are.
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?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:I couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by Think²:
If the councils had not been forced to sell off so much of their housing stock then the private landlords wouldn't have them over a barrel. (Incidentally, this is exactly what will happen with health and social care - private sector initially underbids state sector, then once you have tendered away most of the service - quelle surprise - the private sector prices go up.)
quote:Where are you going to be building? The south-east is pretty built up already.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest firstly, an aggressive house building and refurbishment campaign to lower both rental and buying costs;
quote: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
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.
quote:I've already posted that there are nearly 75,000 empty homes in London alone. That isn't all of the south-east by any means and thousands of them will have been empty for years. Councils already have the legal authority to take over unused homes but they often lack the will and, more importantly the funds.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:Where are you going to be building? The south-east is pretty built up already.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest firstly, an aggressive house building and refurbishment campaign to lower both rental and buying costs;
quote: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?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by Think²:
If the councils had not been forced to sell off so much of their housing stock then the private landlords wouldn't have them over a barrel. (Incidentally, this is exactly what will happen with health and social care - private sector initially underbids state sector, then once you have tendered away most of the service - quelle surprise - the private sector prices go up.)
quote:Pretty built up?
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:Where are you going to be building? The south-east is pretty built up already.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest firstly, an aggressive house building and refurbishment campaign to lower both rental and buying costs;
quote:A friend in council housing wants to move area. To do so, she has to find someone in another area to swap with. Our area is undesirable so few people want to move here. Those who do generally want something better than they already have, which means she will have to downsize. She is already in a 2 bed house with 2 children. Downsizing is not really an option. So she can't move to another area unless she goes into the private rental market. This would cost her a significant amount more. So she isn't moving.
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?
quote: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'?
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.
quote: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?
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.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Yep, no problem with that being on a temporary basis eg: 6-12 months, but not when it becomes semi-permanent. The rest of us have to downsize effectively (either smaller house or cheaper area) when our financial circumstances change so I'm not sure why this particular group thinks they have a God-given right to be exempt from that. I have several clients on my books who are having to do just that, either because one in a couple has lost his or her job or because they've had to accept a pay cut etc.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Now and again (and again) we are inclined to forget that taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed!
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?
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.
quote:Why should where friends and other family are make a difference?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Depends how many kids he has, where his friends and other family are.
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?
quote:Good as far as it goes, but still doesn't justify living in a pricey area.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote: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
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.
quote:Let me get this straight.
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.
quote:This is completely irrelevant, because a significant proportion of most working people's income goes directly to their landlord/mortgage provider as well. But if any of us started claiming that only the part of our salaries that doesn't go on rent/mortgage payments should be considered as income we'd be told where to stick it.
Originally posted by Tina:
c) is generally paid to landlords, not into the 'scrounger's' hands.
quote:Money isn't easy for anyone but, provided it is a going concern, a business can make a better case for the finance to relocate more easily than an unemployed person can, whether they are in rented acccomodation or attempting to pay a mortgage. The business remember is there before and will be in a better position afterwards. By moving from a high-cost area will an unemployed person be moving away from work? Moving can also affect one's entitlement to JSA and other benefits.
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.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[/tangent]
quote:Bullshit.
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote: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'?
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.
quote:Oh, put like that, I agree with you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Let me get this straight.
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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Now and again (and again) we are inclined to forget that taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed!
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?
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.
quote:But some people will be net recipients and others net contributors - that is, I think, what people mean by this shorthand.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote: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.
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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yes - at a level that is appropriate.
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:Yes - at a level that is appropriate.
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.
quote: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'."
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.
quote:'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.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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'."
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.
quote:That's not the point. The point is that it's the cheapest available suitable housing.
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.
quote: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.
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Several people have said this, and also said unemployed people should move to areas where housing is cheaper.
if there are better job opportunities elsewhere, you also go where the work is.
quote:It's obvious that most people don't have the same view as Stoker but most of the argument is around the system as it affects adults. When looked at from the view of the best interests of children the situation may not be so simple.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, don't assume that we all have the same view as Stoker.
quote:It's not council housing we're talking about, as that is relatively cheap; it's the much more expensive private rental sector where the high costs are
Originally posted by Jane R:
Matt:quote:Several people have said this, and also said unemployed people should move to areas where housing is cheaper.
if there are better job opportunities elsewhere, you also go where the work is.
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:That sounds fairly exceptional
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:You need to find new lawyers! The standard rate I charge is £540 on a sale and £550 on a purchase.
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:Or you rent in the new area first until you're sure that your new job is working out; only then do you start putting down roots like buying a house there.
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:Yes, I know. I've done it myself quite a few times. But I don't expect the taxpayer to sub me for it.
And job-hunting costs money, too. A lot of employers and recruitment agencies have stopped paying travelling expenses for candidates to attend interviews.
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:There probably wouldn't be 'perfectly adequate but cheaper' accommodation available locally because housing benefit levels are now fixed at the rate of the cheaper available housing, not the median rate as before. So if you were in circumstances which meant you had to house your family in a private rented house you would need the housing benefit.
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.
quote:Agreed. And all children are entitled to secure, appropriate housing as a matter of right, not charity. No child should be expected to feel grateful for being shown a basic level of concern for their wellbeing.
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'.
quote:I don't think Albertus' quick calculation was based on maintaining you in your present style of house but just on what a three bedroomed house would cost to rent in Hampshire. 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.
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.
quote:Perhaps I should have been more precise, but I can't remember the exact cost breakdown. I do remember the estate agents' fees, lawyers' fees and removal-van costs together came to several thousand.
You need to find new lawyers! The standard rate I charge is £540 on a sale and £550 on a purchase.
quote:Depends. Interest rates are so low at the moment that Matt's mortgage might be cheaper than the rent on a smaller house in a cheaper area.
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.
quote:I do have a child. The state is not responsible for raising her, my wife and I are.
Originally posted by justlooking:
It might not be your point but it is Stoker's point.
quote: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.
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
quote:Er...no; Mrs B and I have often talked about 'upgrading' to a semi as you tend to get more square footage for your £ round here with a semi than you do for a detached property.
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:Agreed completely with you there.
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.
quote:Agree with you there, but does that mean that you return your child benefit each month?
Originally posted by Stoker:
quote:I do have a child. The state is not responsible for raising her, my wife and I are.
Originally posted by justlooking:
It might not be your point but it is Stoker's point.
quote: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.
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Just looking, I feel you are misrepresenting my position. From my OP:
“The welfare state is there to give strugglers a leg up, not a blanket bloody free for all.”
quote:From what you are now saying you would expect the state to stump up your accommodation costs and indeed have claimed state benefits when out of work. You've modified your expectations to justify your own claims for 'intermediate help'.
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
quote:
Getting back to the Stoker redundancy scenario, I might expect some intermediate help, while I recalibrated my family’s circumstances, but I would not make long term plans and expectations based on an ongoing contribution from the government.
quote:
This not the case however for many people who are institutionalised benefits recipients. Is it right that people choose to receive money from taxpayers instead of going to work? :
quote:
2.) A young relative of mine in a rural area who despite having a degree does not expect a high paid job, he works as a minimum wage caring job for adults with learning difficulties. It is shifts and is disruptive to his personal and social life.
quote:If this is a single mother then depending on the age of the children she may be fully employed looking after them. Single parents whose youngest child is seven are now expected to look for work of at least 16 hours a week. The kind of jobs that fit around child-care can be hard to come by. Also, the in-work benefits, including taxpayer-funded childcare, can amount to more than the benefits paid to a full-time parent.
3.) A mum with 2 kids actively looking for work and doing courses to get on and try and find a job as she doesn’t want to be unemployed.
quote:Only too true. Those who say that it's wrong to cut the deficit in a downturn have a strong point, but they rarely stand up to suggest that when things are going well the country should raise taxes. I think that's called political suicide, even if that is the time when one should do so.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Trouble is, in circumstances like that the country can afford a little excess generosity. Whereas in circumstances where important services are being cut because there's no money left (quote attr: the last Labour Chancellor) such largesse needs to be questioned.
quote:No, I use it to fund my sky subscription and buy fags and cheap lager with the leftovers!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Agree with you there, but does that mean that you return your child benefit each month?
Originally posted by Stoker:
quote:I do have a child. The state is not responsible for raising her, my wife and I are.
Originally posted by justlooking:
It might not be your point but it is Stoker's point.
quote: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.
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
quote:After your opening rant about "scroungers" this was in your second post If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs. Your further posts have modified your position to expecting the state to pay accommodation costs for yourself and your family as an "intermediate" measure during times of unemployment. This isn't filling in the background. This is changing from not expecting the state to stump up your accommodation costs to expecting the state to stump up said costs.
Originally posted by Stoker:
Just looking
I haven't modified anything. I laid out my position in the OP and am filling in the details.
quote:And you expect everyone to know your personal circumstances? You asked "Is it right that people choose to receive money from taxpayers instead of going to work? " and I've included disabled people among those for whom it is right. Which is something even a knob-end like you ought to know.
And don't fucking patronise me about disabled people, my daughter has a well mocked learning disability.
quote:There shouldn't be a need to raise taxes in the good times, because if more transactions are happening and more people are being employed there's going to be more tax making its way into the coffers anyway.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Only too true. Those who say that it's wrong to cut the deficit in a downturn have a strong point, but they rarely stand up to suggest that when things are going well the country should raise taxes. I think that's called political suicide, even if that is the time when one should do so.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I know I don't deserve it, I'm just grateful to you for bailing me out. I'll move to Stoke or wherever else you want me to go. Thanks.
Originally posted by Stoker:
Scroungers moaning about having benefits cut.
Please could someone explain why some people in our society expect the government to fund their lifestyle choices. I don't think I actually know anybody who spends £21,000 on accomodation per year. I know lots of people who spend significantly less but have to work hard, scrimp and sacrifice stable family time and life to pay rent and mortgages.
The welfare state is there to give strugglers a leg up, not a blanket bloody free for all.
Too many fuckers know their rights, not enough know their responsibilities.
quote:Every time anything remotely resembling this subject is raised I point out that there are hundreds of thousands of empty homes in Britain, in various stages of (dis)repair. Many hundreds of thousands are not holiday homes or the like and about 75,000 are in the London area. Nothing personal at all, it's my pet cause and I'll not let go of it.
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I'll have a small bet that the great majority of 'excessive' benefit payments go to people who a) live in London and b) have large families.
The problem is London rents are sky high. This is partly due to landlords profiteering at public expense. But it also highlights a chronic lack of affordable accommodation in the very place where it is most needed. All those incredibly rich bankers need servants, waiters, cleaners and so on. Sadly there are not enough places for these low-paid people to live.
One answer is to try to move some activity out of London to reduce demand. Personally I should move the political capital to say Scunthorpe or Skelmersdale, and leave London to the economic and banking sector. Ain't going to happen though.
Another answer would be to build lots of cheap (i.e. subsidised) Council flats in the capital. Ain't going to happen though.
quote:Those who are currently unemployed or underemployed could repair, refurbish and redecorate these homes. They would also have wages with which to rent or buy them. They wouldn't be receiving benefits any more and they would pay taxes too, all of which would reduce the deficit. Hello? Mr Osborne?
So you are left with moving the claimants to cheaper areas, say Stoke. Problem with this is there are (almost by definition) less jobs in such areas. So, apart from anything else, your claimants are less likely to find work. In addition, your pool of unskilled labour in London (where there are uses for it) is much reduced. I would question whether this is strategically desirable.
quote:I doubt the resources exist to do all that needs to be done, but if all the available labour was employed the supply and demand in that market would of itself make capitalism untenable. What happens now with housing costs, with the approval of those in power within government and elsewhere, would then happen to wages, and those in power would whinge like a banker denied his bonus!
Any road, where there are big families of children no conceivable government is going to throw them out to sleep on park benches. There are going to be housed, and it is going to cost. (Probably cheaper than bunging the kids in orphanages though!)
Bottom line, capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment to work at all. At certain phases in the economic cycle it does, by its very nature, throw large numbers of people out of work. Given that there is not enough work for everyone, it is rather pointless to moan and gripe about supporting those without jobs. It's part of the price we pay for a 'system' that we generally seem to like.
quote:I suppose people like capitalism for the same reason others like Creflo Dollar: they see something in it for them. 99% of both groups will be disappointed.
If you want *everyone* to work *all the time* the way forward is Socialism. People may not be as productive under that system, but they'll certainly be found work.
quote:No - the reason rents are so high is that people are willing to pay them rather than go live and work somewhere else.
Originally posted by Sighthound:
The problem is London rents are sky high. This is partly due to landlords profiteering at public expense.