Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
LuckyOne

Hoousing Benefit .......

Recommended Posts

I have been wondering about how the HB system is administered.

From what I can see, there is an incredible duplication of effort and recipients have very little choice.

If we admisistered it nationally, both taxpayers and recipients could benefit :

- The administrative burden would be much smaller as we would set national standards rather than local standards

- Recipients would have the choice to move to cheaper areas and have better homes

- Taxpayers would beneift as recipients shop jurisdictions by price rather than by the level of local benefits

- The system would align the decisions that recipients face with those that private owners or renters have to make

- The system could be enhanced to allow a 1.5k moving allowance every three years to help people move because of families, jobs etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been wondering about how the HB system is administered.

From what I can see, there is an incredible duplication of effort and recipients have very little choice.

If we admisistered it nationally, both taxpayers and recipients could benefit :

- The administrative burden would be much smaller as we would set national standards rather than local standards

- Recipients would have the choice to move to cheaper areas and have better homes

- Taxpayers would beneift as recipients shop jurisdictions by price rather than by the level of local benefits

- The system would align the decisions that recipients face with those that private owners or renters have to make

- The system could be enhanced to allow a 1.5k moving allowance every three years to help people move because of families, jobs etc

If someone on housing benefit has three kids and lives in Central London, they can get huge amount to pay to rent the right sized house.

If someone with a job has three kids they have to moved out of London.

You are right it should be national and there should be a cap - based on the level of earnings someone gets and is no longer entitled to any benefits - set to encourage people to move to cheaper areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone on housing benefit has three kids and lives in Central London, they can get huge amount to pay to rent the right sized house.

If someone with a job has three kids they have to moved out of London.

You are right it should be national and there should be a cap - based on the level of earnings someone gets and is no longer entitled to any benefits - set to encourage people to move to cheaper areas.

There were schemes set up in the 1990s and early noughties to help London families move from social housing in the capital to social housing in other parts of the country.

The schemes were massively over-subscribed, and, the last I heard, the waiting list was over five years long. It turned out that rather a lot of families living in social housing in London just didn't want to live in London and desparately wanted to move.

The problem was social housing availability in other parts of the country and there was also a fair amount of "parish board" mentality on the part of other local authorities.

I think it is probably time for all the disparate benefits to come under one scheme and one payment for central government where you receive a set amount to pay for your living costs, including rent and council tax, from that sum. Maybe a citizen's wage that everyone receives: employed people would get this sum removed from their income tax dues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its to be' fair'. Wouldnt want all those non-working families ending up in Burnley, would we?! Chelsea and Belgravia must take their fair share, even if it means vast taxpayer expense.

It is a tough call.

One option is to reinforce the "ghettos" that have always existed. The other is to blight all areas more equally.

I can understand the logic of both sides of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't they take all the full-time longterm doleites and ship them off to somewhere where there is loads of cheap unwanted housing?

I mean, if they don't want to get a job, they may as well be in somewhere like Liverpool where there are hardly any jobs, and where everyone else around them won't ahve a job either, so they won't feel out of place.

Then they can all sell smack to each other!

Problem solved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a tough call.

One option is to reinforce the "ghettos" that have always existed. The other is to blight all areas more equally.

I can understand the logic of both sides of the argument.

I dont think that there shouldn't be Housing benefit in posh parts of London, just that having some kind of work should be a prerequisite to the entitlement - i question the wisdom of paying for long term unemployed households to live in the most expensive parts of the country with the most acute housing shortages, given that many have either given up on, dont want to, or arent likely to find work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that there shouldn't be Housing benefit in posh parts of London, just that having some kind of work should be a prerequisite to the entitlement - i question the wisdom of paying for long term unemployed households to live in the most expensive parts of the country with the most acute housing shortages, given that many have either given up on, dont want to, or arent likely to find work.

The fact that HB gives some people without work a competitive edge in the rental market (and, by extension ultimately in the OO market) over people in work who want to live close to their place of work doesn't make sense from either a fairness, resource consumption or quality of life perspective.

Living with a 25 minute walk either way to and from work has been the best that I have ever experienced. Living with a 90 minute commute either way to and from work (in real time rather than EA time) was hellish. The way that HB is priced and administered pushes people in work towards the latter and away from the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that HB gives some people without work a competitive edge in the rental market (and, by extension ultimately in the OO market) over people in work who want to live close to their place of work doesn't make sense from either a fairness, resource consumption or quality of life perspective.

Living with a 25 minute walk either way to and from work has been the best that I have ever experienced. Living with a 90 minute commute either way to and from work (in real time rather than EA time) was hellish. The way that HB is priced and administered pushes people in work towards the latter and away from the former.

Correct, it's totally counter-intuitive and inefficient.

But housing benefit is the cost paid by society to prevent breakdown of law and order. Without housing benefit, those out of work would be force to turn to crime to put a roof over their families heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, it's totally counter-intuitive and inefficient.

But housing benefit is the cost paid by society to prevent breakdown of law and order. Without housing benefit, those out of work would be force to turn to crime to put a roof over their families heads.

I agree that taxes and caritable giving are the the bribes paid by the "haves" to help the "have nots" to survive without having to resort to violence to survive.

That said, I suspect that the bribes could be made less inefficient to further reduce the chance that the "have nots" will resort to force to survive in the coming age of austerity.

Many years ago, I saw a panhandler at the side of the road in Joburg. He had a sign that read something like "I have AIDS. My family and I are hungry. If I do not get enough money to feed my family by the end of to-day, I will have to break into someone's house and steal enough to feed my family. It might be your house." People were literally throwing large amounts of money at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 142 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.