Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tired of Waiting

Finally ! Ian Duncan Smith Says Housing Benefits Go To Private Landlords, And He Is

Recommended Posts

Excellent! Finally!

Ian Duncan Smith just said on BBC Radio 4 "Any Questions?" that Housing Benefits actually go to private landlords. And he was loudly applauded by the audience!

Very good program overall. It should go on-line this afternoon.

___________

Edit: Sorry, I hadn't realised it was a repeat. It was already on-line.

12min 30sec in, link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00v1rq5/Any_Questions_08_10_2010

Housing benefit is mentioned within the argument about capping total annual benefits.

And Ian Duncan Smith also mentions that the £26k annual cap is NET, and equivalent to a £35k gross salary.

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there will be many times when the government does something I find stupid, I had quite forgotten what it was like to have Cabinet Ministers who spoke with intelligence.

These last few months have been quite interesting; the real work starts very soon of course but there is some cause for optimism. When you think what might have happened had somehow Labour clung on it's horrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to some of this last night - Starkey was his usual bumptioous self, draw gasps when he suggested that Brown had purposely created a a ponzi Labour state that would ensure votes for New Labour. He does come across well with the mainstream but he is always spot on with his analysis. ie most people hate people with a 'posh/educated' accent making a strong point about the social fabric of the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to some of this last night - Starkey was his usual bumptioous self, draw gasps when he suggested that Brown had purposely created a a ponzi Labour state that would ensure votes for New Labour. He does come across well with the mainstream but he is always spot on with his analysis. ie most people hate people with a 'posh/educated' accent making a strong point about the social fabric of the UK.

Oops. Sorry. I didn't realise it was a repeat.

So, the link must be on-line already. I'll link it here then.

There: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00v1rq5/Any_Questions_08_10_2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there will be many times when the government does something I find stupid, I had quite forgotten what it was like to have Cabinet Ministers who spoke with intelligence.

These last few months have been quite interesting; the real work starts very soon of course but there is some cause for optimism. When you think what might have happened had somehow Labour clung on it's horrifying.

It is an amazing feeling when your leaders speak with intelligence and you agree with them. Looks like the average Brit might not be as dumb as sometimes thought, applauding loudly on a good point, but one they might not have thought about before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an amazing feeling when your leaders speak with intelligence and you agree with them. Looks like the average Brit might not be as dumb as sometimes thought, applauding loudly on a good point, but one they might not have thought about before.

It simply requires the ability to think beyond the superficial, something the idiot social engineers never can.

Nothing to do with scamming, everything to do with what happens when people screw with markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private sector been skimming and scamming £billions.

Precisely.

The Labour strategy was to make as many people as possible dependent on state spending and control.

A private landlord whose income was from housing benefit was as dependent upon the state as much as his tenants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Labour strategy was to make as many people as possible dependent on state spending and control.

A private landlord whose income was from housing benefit was as dependent upon the state as much as his tenants.

It's good to see the reality of deficit spending being recognised.

i.e. the beneficiaries are the private sector (contrary to most of the tosh repeated ad nauseam)

At least Duncan Smith gets it: Public sector deficits = private sector surpluses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BTL client state Labour encouraged was partly canny - before the bank bailout at least - as the investment risk was being borne by the private sector even though it was the taxpayer paying the price. I don't think voters would have stood for massive numbers of council houses being built for people who weren't going to be paying the rent but the opportunity to get 'money from the Government' for housing people was enough of a draw for many. Perhaps many saw it as something of a tax rebate.

Labour bought the vote of landlords and tenants alike by paying rents and those bribes helped push house prices upwards which in turn bribed more voters.

The biggest problem though is not who gets the money but who pays for it. Too many people are reliant on housing benefit. Too many of those people are living in areas that are too expensive for people with jobs to live in. Whether people were living rent free in council or private properties it is that they are living rent free that is ultimately the burden on the taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see the reality of deficit spending being recognised.

i.e. the beneficiaries are the private sector (contrary to most of the tosh repeated ad nauseam)

At least Duncan Smith gets it: Public sector deficits = private sector surpluses.

Yes the wealth consuming part of the private sector did well out of deficit spending.

It will be the wealth creating part of the private sector that will be paying the extra taxes to pay the interest on all the extra debt.

The wealth creating / wealth consuming division in the economy is far more important that the private / public division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private sector been skimming and scamming £billions.

Precisely.

The landlords are only being paid via the proceeds of extortion- the biggest skimmer and worst Scammer of all is, and always has been, the State.

Without the benefit of that primary act of theft via taxation, the landlords would only ever get paid the free market rate. Which of course, would be far, far lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there will be many times when the government does something I find stupid, I had quite forgotten what it was like to have Cabinet Ministers who spoke with intelligence.

These last few months have been quite interesting; the real work starts very soon of course but there is some cause for optimism. When you think what might have happened had somehow Labour clung on it's horrifying.

Very true. But what still remains is the silly soundbite "we're all in this together". Well I suppose we are really. Up to our necks. Except for the people who played such a huge role in the mess. We sp@nked billions away propping up a corrupt and a failed, disastrously incompetent banking sector, only to see that money sp@nked away again replenishing the already fat wallets of the corpulent ones we have only just bailed out. I find this ruling lot fairly likeable on the whole as personalities, where I despised Brown and the brain dead simpletons who are still out there. But are they going to reign in the excesses of the bloaters in the city? Are they by buggery!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see the reality of deficit spending being recognised.

i.e. the beneficiaries are the private sector (contrary to most of the tosh repeated ad nauseam)

At least Duncan Smith gets it: Public sector deficits = private sector surpluses.

That would only apply if all the deficit had been blown on Housing benefit. You'd also have to net out the BTL empires of any Civil servants.

I partially take your point, however, a percentage of the deficit will have ended up back in private hands, but as the apportionment of revenues is entirely politically subjective, it would be impossible to establish the amount.

One things for sure though, it will only ever be the private sector that actually generates revenue and it will only ever be the private sector that has to actually repay the debts.

Edited by Jack's Creation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I hate being governed by a bunch of overfed public school thickos that haven't set foot in the real world but the new Government seems 100 times better than being governed by New Labour.

With so many on housing benefit now renting in the general rental market rather than social housing, it merely keeps rents higher than they would need to be, improving the investments of private speculators with public funds. Why should housing benefits cover the 'sticker price' of a private rental? Perhaps the sticker price is too high.

IDS's welfare package looks very reasonable. It could be even more radical to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found myself agreeing with a lot of Starkey's rants.

What the hell are we doing paying benefits to people who earn more than the average wage?

That doesn't make any sense at all. A bonfire of the universal benefits is what is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there will be many times when the government does something I find stupid, I had quite forgotten what it was like to have Cabinet Ministers who spoke with intelligence.

These last few months have been quite interesting; the real work starts very soon of course but there is some cause for optimism. When you think what might have happened had somehow Labour clung on it's horrifying.

Yes, and not only from government. It feels like common sense is returning to the country in general, media and public - slowly, I know, let's not get over excited here. But I think it is starting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found myself agreeing with a lot of Starkey's rants.

What the hell are we doing paying benefits to people who earn more than the average wage?

That doesn't make any sense at all. A bonfire of the universal benefits is what is needed.

Did you hear that howl when getting rid of bus passes was mentioned? Sounded like people having spikes shoved up their bums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It simply requires the ability to think beyond the superficial, something the idiot social engineers never can.

Nothing to do with scamming, everything to do with what happens when people screw with markets.

Good point. It was the last government that distorted the market, by setting housing benefit at the average local rent. What used to be average, becomes a floor, pushing the new average up. Repeat every year... :rolleyes:

BTW, that also supported the expansion of the BTL industry.

Credit was too abundant, and too cheap. And rents were supported by the Treasury. No wonder the BTL spread like a cancer.

Stupid stupid government.

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much misinformation about Housing Benefit.

I posted a video yesterday with Ken Loach and Hestletine. At one point loach is suggesting the cut is to hurt the unemployed.

Housing benefit and unemployment are two different things. Many (the majority?) on housing benefit are in employment.

Cut it and landlords cut their rent. Not even landlords are stupid enough to choose zero rental income over slightly less rental income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the benefit of that primary act of theft via taxation, the landlords would only ever get paid the free market rate. Which of course, would be far, far lower.

Lower? actually zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to some of this last night - Starkey was his usual bumptioous self, draw gasps when he suggested that Brown had purposely created a a ponzi Labour state that would ensure votes for New Labour. He does come across well with the mainstream but he is always spot on with his analysis. ie most people hate people with a 'posh/educated' accent making a strong point about the social fabric of the UK.

Yes, he said Labour intentionally created a client state. And I think he mentioned he had read some "strategy papers" written by Gordon Brown about that. Right? I am curious about these "strategy papers" now.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 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.