You Think London Prices Can't Go Higher?

[mightytharg]

SocialHsgRentTo rise

I know there is a resentment here of those fortunate enough to occupy council/social housing in London, but doubling their rents can only increase house prices. Why? Those out of work or claiming benefits will probably get most of the rent paid from Housing Benefit (ok so they may have to do illegal p/t work if HB doesn't cover all the rent), but what about those in decent paying jobs? They'll look to buy somewhere asap (if only in zone 4,5 or 6) once the rents start to rise.

Well done, the jealous bigrade. You've now made an overpriced housing market even worse.

It should be good for the rest of us as our Council Tax goes down, and much fairer.

Shifting poor scroungers out of the center of London is another benefit. Good for the environment too as commuting distances decrease.

It's strange that anyone would attempt to criticise an obviously good policy like this.

[crash2006]

It should be good for the rest of us as our Council Tax goes down, and much fairer.

Shifting poor scroungers out of the center of London is another benefit. Good for the environment too as commuting distances decrease.

It's strange that anyone would attempt to criticise an obviously good policy like this.

Your council tax will not go down, rents in both sectors will go up, and property building companies will start their own social housing business.

[@contradevian]

Shifting poor scroungers out of the center of London is another benefit. Good for the environment too as commuting distances decrease.

Yup only the rich scrounger scum that created the mess will remain.

[Trampa501]

Your council tax will not go down, rents in both sectors will go up, and property building companies will start their own social housing business.

Spot on. Council tax will probably go up as more tenants who are currently working (it won't be 100% but a sizeable number) decide to claim housing benefit as the rent doubles. And since it will be deemed as "fair rent" the council will be obligated to pay all of that on housing benefit.

I suppose that if employers of shop staff, bus drivers, street cleaners etc suddenly decide to pay their staff more, this won't happen. But that's very unlikely - they'll just continue to pay the same to EEs and the local working population will decide why work, when they can get the rent paid with HB? I realise this already happens, but double the rent and surely it will get worse?

The logical conclusion of all this (and which really would reduce house prices) is to do away with housing benefit altogether. But I can't see any current government taking this option - it would make last year's riots look like a vicars' tea-party. You can stop hb being paid to private landlords charging the earth, but stopping hb on "fair rents"? Be realistic, it isn't going to happen.

[crash2006]

Spot on. Council tax will probably go up as more tenants who are currently working (it won't be 100% but a sizeable number) decide to claim housing benefit as the rent doubles. And since it will be deemed as "fair rent" the council will be obligated to pay all of that on housing benefit.

I suppose that if employers of shop staff, bus drivers, street cleaners etc suddenly decide to pay their staff more, this won't happen. But that's very unlikely - they'll just continue to pay the same to EEs and the local working population will decide why work, when they can get the rent paid with HB? I realise this already happens, but double the rent and surely it will get worse?

The logical conclusion of all this (and which really would reduce house prices) is to do away with housing benefit altogether. But I can't see any current government taking this option - it would make last year's riots look like a vicars' tea-party. You can stop hb being paid to private landlords charging the earth, but stopping hb on "fair rents"? Be realistic, it isn't going to happen.

rents will not go down, they are using he excuse of HB to make central London poor free zone.

[MRMX9]

rents will not go down, they are using he excuse of HB to make central London poor free zone.

Well they have already made central London a middle class/average earnings person free zone.

Why exactly should the very poor on benefits have more rights to live in zone 1 than someone working on £50,000. In order to buy a studio now in Westminster you would probably need a £75k salary to get the mortgage needed - and that's assuming you liked beans on toast to eat every day!

Labour didn't seem to have an issue when they socially cleansed the middle class and average earners from central London - but now their voters in seats like Hammersmith and North Westminster and Islington south are facing the prospect of moving they are in uproar!

[crash2006]

Well they have already made central London a middle class/average earnings person free zone.

Why exactly should the very poor on benefits have more rights to live in zone 1 than someone working on £50,000. In order to buy a studio now in Westminster you would probably need a £75k salary to get the mortgage needed - and that's assuming you liked beans on toast to eat every day!

Labour didn't seem to have an issue when they socially cleansed the middle class and average earners from central London - but now their voters in seats like Hammersmith and North Westminster and Islington south are facing the prospect of moving they are in uproar!

Because it'll make other areas expensive to live in.Plus if you are born in the area you should have more rights to live in it than others, if you say why should you, then ill reply we'll using your argument you should have no rights in the entire UK.

Oh btw moving all the poor into one area will increase crime rates and destroy communities, and become like parts of LA and NY, and you don't ever want that.

Edited March 4, 2012 by crash2006

[@contradevian]

Its all about inserting crony capitalists and banks into social housing system. Currently they are building or are planning 400+ new "social homes" here in West Yorkshire but its all PFI contracts for the building and management.

[MongerOfDoom]

Spot on. Council tax will probably go up as more tenants who are currently working (it won't be 100% but a sizeable number) decide to claim housing benefit as the rent doubles.

Housing benefit is not funded by council tax, is it?

[Democorruptcy]

Well yes, you maybe right. Meanwhile outside London my rent is going up at 6.1% +2%.(=7.5%) and will continue to go up at that rate until 2016 when it will supposedly go up by the inflation rate +0.5%.

I have two choices....

1. RTB.

2. Benefits.

Actually I'm working just 2 days a week at the moment as I have holiday owed...so working 2 days a week and claiming benefits (HB and CT) seems pretty good.

They want you to RTB it means you are using your money to pay your HB on behalf of the government. It's why they putting the discount up and partly why they are pushing rents up. They think by getting people into RTB debt it also makes them keep working.

Unfortunately it's not going to work. As rents increase more and more people are going to throw the towel in and turn to benefits. Some will just stop working others will cut their hours to get benefits and become a net taker from the state instead of a giver. There have been people on here reducing hours from £45k a year jobs to claim benefits. Nearly double the average wage and work doesn't pay

They are discouraging work and demonising saving.

Tick tock....

[homeless]

council housing is very often in poor schemes, sure some is nice but a lot is drug infested tower blocks and the like. They put the rent up too much and these places will just get even worse with 100% hb jeremy kyle types. People working aint gonna pay near private prices for these places.

just another reason not to work.

Edited March 4, 2012 by homeless

[Ah-so]

Because it'll make other areas expensive to live in.Plus if you are born in the area you should have more rights to live in it than others, if you say why should you, then ill reply we'll using your argument you should have no rights in the entire UK.

Oh btw moving all the poor into one area will increase crime rates and destroy communities, and become like parts of LA and NY, and you don't ever want that.

If only people like you had been a bit more vocal when I was growing up in a smart zone 2 suburb of London. I was born there, but could not afford to stay as rents and property prices rose ever higher. Despite now being a higher tax payer, I now find myself in outer London, zone 4 no less!

The only way I could possibly have stayed in the part of London I was born in would be to a) have got paid over £100,000 or b ) taken a low-paid job and claimed housing benefit.

Unfortunately no one has ever taken up my cause, despite having had to move from the place of my birth to an affordable outer suburb. For some reason when it is suggested that those who also cannot afford the area, but who earn even less than I do, should come and join me, it some people get really exercised about it. And there I am thinking, "hello, what about me?"

Furthermore, the cleansing of central London has already occurred. My less well off (metaphorical) cousins could never for example, get the full pleasure of what is available in Fulham Rd or Kings Rd, yet it was cruelly taken from me - one who could enjoy it to the full, because I was not given subsidised housing. This is a great wrong that should be righted and I am surprised that neither state, nor charity has stepped in. "The middle class benevolent fund" has a nice ring to it - its purpose to allow the natural inhabitants of fashionable suburbs to remain resident when they become overridden with banker money.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Ah-so

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

Because it'll make other areas expensive to live in.Plus if you are born in the area you should have more rights to live in it than others, if you say why should you, then ill reply we'll using your argument you should have no rights in the entire UK.

Oh btw moving all the poor into one area will increase crime rates and destroy communities, and become like parts of LA and NY, and you don't ever want that.

I was born in chelsea. Can everyone pay for my family to live there please?

[Unexpected]

I was born in chelsea. Can everyone pay for my family to live there please?

I was born in a big mansion so surely I am entitled to continue living in one as thats what Im used to. Should I be expected to change just because I cant afford to pay market rate?

[crash2006]

If

Unfortunately no one has ever taken up my cause, despite having had to move from the place of my birth to an affordable outer suburb. For some reason when it is suggested that those who also cannot afford the area, but who earn even less than I do, should come and join me, it some people get really exercised about it. And there I am thinking, "hello, what about me?"

You need to move out a bit more, and more and more.

[Ah-so]

I was born in chelsea. Can everyone pay for my family to live there please?

But you are in Dulwich now, which is still quite posh (or parts of it anyway).

[Dorkins]

Housing benefit is not funded by council tax, is it?

All taxes in the UK go into big pots where you cannot say which pound came from where. There is no point in discussions about "tax X does/doesn't pay for Y" because government finances don't work like that.

[Ah-so]

You need to move out a bit more, and more and more.

No can do - will just end up in Guildford and that is nearly as expensive as where I grew up.

I really need some help to subsidise me. £400,000 should do, although I would need to increase my mortgage.

The only realistic option I can see would be the death of my parents, but not indulging in tobacco, strong lager or deep-fried or processed food, they remain excessively healthy. And I like them.

[Dorkins]

council housing is very often in poor schemes, sure some is nice but a lot is drug infested tower blocks and the like. They put the rent up too much and these places will just get even worse with 100% hb jeremy kyle types. People working aint gonna pay near private prices for these places.

just another reason not to work.

Avoiding spending one's life in a drug infested tower block seems like an excellent reason to work.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

But you are in Dulwich now, which is still quite posh (or parts of it anyway).

It may be posh, but it's way way cheaper (if you rent privately).

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

I was born in a big mansion so surely I am entitled to continue living in one as thats what Im used to. Should I be expected to change just because I cant afford to pay market rate?

Yes, that's exactly my point.

[MongerOfDoom]

All taxes in the UK go into big pots where you cannot say which pound came from where. There is no point in discussions about "tax X does/doesn't pay for Y" because government finances don't work like that.

It's simply not true. Just ask the BBC if they can tell how much money the license fee raises. You are right that most taxes are not collected for a particular purpose, but I thought the CT was one of the exceptions (it helps fund council spending). In any case, the original post I was replying to would still be wrong even if you were right.

[MongerOfDoom]

Because it'll make other areas expensive to live in.Plus if you are born in the area you should have more rights to live in it than others, if you say why should you, then ill reply we'll using your argument you should have no rights in the entire UK.

Reality check? Being born in the UK gives you pretty much no rights at all that other EU citizens would not have after they come over. If you are English and happen to study at a Scottish university, you will see that somehow being born here might not be all that it's cracked up to be :-)

So why should being born in a particular area give you any rights whatsoever, again?

[crash2006]

Reality check? Being born in the UK gives you pretty much no rights at all that other EU citizens would not have after they come over. If you are English and happen to study at a Scottish university, you will see that somehow being born here might not be all that it's cracked up to be :-)

So why should being born in a particular area give you any rights whatsoever, again?

If there are no rights for an individual then we dont have a state but a dictatorship, the state gives native people rights and the native people give up some of there behaviorism.

[MongerOfDoom]

If there are no rights for an individual then we dont have a state but a dictatorship, the state gives native people rights and the native people give up some of there behaviorism.

We still have many useful rights, it's just that none of them do (or should) depend on exactly where you were born. If you paid attention in the last few decades, you would know that it is no longer just the native people who are given rights by the state.