interestrateripoff Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle6812926.ece Gordon Brown is facing a Labour revolt over plans to cut the benefits of the poorest families by up to £15 a week, The Times can reveal.Proposals to be implemented next April, a month before a general election, could mean some people losing a fifth of their income. The move, which has provoked anger among Labour backbenchers, was compared last night with the fiasco over the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax. At the moment 300,000 people on low incomes are allowed to keep up to £780 a year of their housing allowance if they find accommodation that costs less than the maximum benefit. The Treasury says that the policy costs too much and that the ability to pocket any surplus should be scrapped from April 1. The change would take place three months after the rate of VAT is increased to 17.5 per cent. Crisis, the housing charity, said that it could mean that people on £65-a-week jobseeker’s allowance losing 20 per cent of their income. Frank Field, the former Labour welfare minister who led the revolt over the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax, said that he would try to stop the measure being pushed through Parliament. Karen Buck, a Labour MP who campaigns on housing, said: “We should not under any circumstances be taking money from the poorest and making them choose between reasonable housing bills and meeting day-to-day expenses. I don’t know how many that applies to. Either way, either the savings aren’t there or poor people will suffer.†The reform was introduced to give tenants greater control over their housing arrangements by paying the rent themselves, and the option to trade quality for extra cash. The Government believes that abolishing the policy will save £160 million, but Labour MPs point out that the removal of competition means that landlords will raise rents to the allowance maximum. Landlords have been pressing for the change because they want rent to go directly to them. Sarah Teather, the Liberal Democrat housing spokeswoman who discovered the change, said: “£15 a week may be small change to ministers, but for families struggling to make ends meet it is incredibly important. Gordon Brown has once again abandoned the people who need the most help.†The change was announced in the small print of the Budget. The Government said that 600,000 people received the housing allowance, which replaced the old housing benefit in April 2007, and it has estimated that 300,000 claim a surplus. Mr Field said that it was a retrograde step that destroyed the whole purpose of the allowance. “At one stroke, they get rid of a reform aimed at getting flexibility into a fairly inflexible market by giving people incentives to shop around. The timing for this could have been decided in Conservative headquarters.†He plans to table amendments opposing the new policy. Leslie Morphy, of Crisis, said: “This proposal is ill considered and potentially counterproductive. It beggars belief that the Government intends to introduce this when, by its own admission, it has no idea what the impact on claimants will be. We urge the Government to reconsider.†So for finding accommodation that costs less than the maximum allowance tennants get to keep some money? So the taxpayer is paying people to shop around? What's missing from this story is how much the taxpayer has saved by paying tennants in this way? Is the saving a 50/50 split? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 We know Brown is a psychopath so that isn't news. What is fascinating is further evidence of how little he understands markets. Remove the incentive to choose on price and rents will rise to the allowance. He really doesn't grasp any of this, does he? The implication for his ability to govern a market is staggering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 This is vital. LHA should be coming down anyway and rents will need to be reduced. We can not fund a huge number of private landlords. One local one is getting an advisor in to tell tenants how to get the full lha even if they can't currently get it. That needs stamping out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Its a housing allowance, not an income subsidy. If housing costs less than the maximum allowable then we should pay the lesser amount. Very simple really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 slam the renters, and yet, go behind on your £200,000.00 mortgage and they pay you 6.?% WHATEVER your mortgage rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Its a housing allowance, not an income subsidy. If housing costs less than the maximum allowable then we should pay the lesser amount. Very simple really. No, it's an income supplement. If you just pay the price for housing, we're back to everything that's historically wrong: No cost to the claimant for their housing So claimants can pay landlords asking prices, no matter how outrageous The rental marketplace - market rents for landlords and tenants - is driven by unlimited money supply Self-funding tenants are priced out by the claimants, and have to fight for whatever slums may be left over Landlords are faced with the choice of playing that game or charging substantially below market rents Yields rise, driving up house prices and pricing out anyone who doesn't want to play that game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 No, it's an income supplement. If you just pay the price for housing, we're back to everything that's historically wrong:No cost to the claimant for their housing So claimants can pay landlords asking prices, no matter how outrageous The rental marketplace - market rents for landlords and tenants - is driven by unlimited money supply Self-funding tenants are priced out by the claimants, and have to fight for whatever slums may be left over Landlords are faced with the choice of playing that game or charging substantially below market rents Yields rise, driving up house prices and pricing out anyone who doesn't want to play that game Except local authorities cap the maximum they are prepared to pay. i.e. pay the minimum and cap the maximum. How can it being an income supplement be fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Take cash? or Give less cash? time to open up the soup kitchens and give food shelter and warmth. Not more blank cheques. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Except local authorities cap the maximum they are prepared to pay. i.e. pay the minimum and cap the maximum. How can it being an income supplement be fair? the maximum is calculated on the market rate for a given type of property. so if they are deciding the rate, then the maximum is at that rate. its chicken and egg. add in inflationery rises when other landlords are dropping and we have a situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Take cash?or Give less cash? time to open up the soup kitchens and give food shelter and warmth. Not more blank cheques. that sounds fine...as long as it applies to loan defaulters too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 Threads need merging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 that sounds fine...as long as it applies to loan defaulters too. No the loan defaulters should get the choice of one of the other, especially if they have lied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 give food shelter and warmth That's what benefit should be from my perspective. People should have a somewhere decent to live, i.e. clean, no damp, no rot etc., they should have a decent amount of decent food and they should be kept warm. What they shouldn't be able to do is rip the taxpayer off through getting paid more rent than the housing costs them and buying fags with the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 That's what benefit should be from my perspective. People should have a somewhere decent to live, i.e. clean, no damp, no rot etc., they should have a decent amount of decent food and they should be kept warm. What they shouldn't be able to do is rip the taxpayer off through getting paid more rent than the housing costs them and buying fags with the difference. I hope no one from Sky is reading this. I bet you'd want to cut off their entertainment as well? I wonder how much of business in the UK is subsidised by the govt indirectly, although the geniuses in charge of said business will deny it. Do Sky publish any sort of postcode stats on the user base? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 the maximum is calculated on the market rate for a given type of property. so if they are deciding the rate, then the maximum is at that rate. its chicken and egg.add in inflationery rises when other landlords are dropping and we have a situation. No it isn't. It is calculated on what th authority think the market rate should be. If it is more, as is often the case around here, then you find the difference yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 No it isn't. It is calculated on what th authority think the market rate should be. If it is more, as is often the case around here, then you find the difference yourself. well having claimed, the lady told me they look at rents on available places of the size you are entitled to and thats what they pay. to imply a public body "thinks" a value not backed up by "evidence" assumes ass covering is not the prime raison d'etre of PS employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 well having claimed, the lady told me they look at rents on available places of the size you are entitled to and thats what they pay.to imply a public body "thinks" a value not backed up by "evidence" assumes ass covering is not the prime raison d'etre of PS employees. They have a rate card for the type of house. That is what they pay againt, at least around here that's how it works. My scrounging sister lives in a 2 up 2 down that the council rate at £650/month. The actual rent is £750 so my dad pays the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/Secure/LHARat...chType=PostCode LHA by postcode. Shows back data too - so someone clever could chart it all and show if LHA achieved it's aims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 They have a rate card for the type of house. That is what they pay againt, at least around here that's how it works. My scrounging sister lives in a 2 up 2 down that the council rate at £650/month. The actual rent is £750 so my dad pays the difference. thats right, they dont pay by what you have, they pay by what you are entitled to. so if you have a family with a boy and a girl you get 3 beds. same family but 2 boys and you get paid for 2 beds. no kids and you get 1 bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 "..but the crowd clamoured for more, so the French state sent out more assignats, fearing the mob." We is ******ed. This is going to go all the way to the bottom. That's a scary, scary and long way from here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 thats right, they dont pay by what you have, they pay by what you are entitled to.so if you have a family with a boy and a girl you get 3 beds. same family but 2 boys and you get paid for 2 beds. no kids and you get 1 bed. That's fine. And my point is, that if my sister's rent was actually £600 she should only get £600 and not get to keep the extra £50. That seems to be what is being proposed and I support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 That's fine. And my point is, that if my sister's rent was actually £600 she should only get £600 and not get to keep the extra £50. That seems to be what is being proposed and I support it. Sisters rent is going to £600 and she's going to split the £50 in half with her landlord. 100% guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Sisters rent is going to £600 and she's going to split the £50 in half with her landlord.100% guaranteed. Is it below the rate card value? Maybe that's the bit i'm not getting. The rate card value around here is nearly always below the actual rent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Is it below the rate card value? Maybe that's the bit i'm not getting. The rate card value around here is nearly always below the actual rent. Unless rents lower people will never be able to afford to work. Why bother even trying ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Unless rents lower people will never be able to afford to work. Why bother even trying ? Poor dependant people = an excuse to tax. They don't want you to do anything but sit there and be their excuse for steealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.