Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

New Angle? Chld Poverty Driven By High Rents?

Recommended Posts

Caught a bit of a news article about a bloke from Gt Manchester going to Downing street to ask cameron to help people out like him. He's a single parent and after he's paid the bills he has £5 left and can't afford to take his kid anywhere as a treat.

Child poverty being a direct result of high rents would be a great reason to promote the lower rents cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught a bit of a news article about a bloke from Gt Manchester going to Downing street to ask cameron to help people out like him. He's a single parent and after he's paid the bills he has £5 left and can't afford to take his kid anywhere as a treat.

Child poverty being a direct result of high rents would be a great reason to promote the lower rents cause.

Going to see Cameron will be a waste of time, Cameron is a banking shill of the highest order. The reason Joe Sixpack is struggling and is going to struggle much more is the fact so many spivs have sucked so much money out of the system and continue to do so.

Some people need to go to work to make real money, others simply buy a pile of bricks or place a no lose bet on anything they like that is then backed by the taxpayer should it all go wrong.

Since Merv is standing ready to devalue all our money so his banking and BTL buddies can keep their ill gotten gains then the average man of the street, working a real job for real money is going to find it harder and harder to get by as the money he earns buys less and less.

Welcome to serfdom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to see Cameron will be a waste of time, Cameron is a banking shill of the highest order. The reason Joe Sixpack is struggling and is going to struggle much more is the fact so many spivs have sucked so much money out of the system and continue to do so.

Some people need to go to work to make real money, others simply buy a pile of bricks or place a no lose bet on anything they like that is then backed by the taxpayer should it all go wrong.

Since Merv is standing ready to devalue all our money so his banking and BTL buddies can keep their ill gotten gains then the average man of the street, working a real job for real money is going to find it harder and harder to get by as the money he earns buys less and less.

Welcome to serfdom...

thats a very negative outlook, theres no i in team, suck it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child poverty being a direct result of high rents would be a great reason to promote the lower rents cause.

Heh. Interesting twist!

The "child poverty" agenda was one of the most monumentally stupid drivers of NuLab idiocy. The money they threw at it was a major driver for HPI and high rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. Interesting twist!

The "child poverty" agenda was one of the most monumentally stupid drivers of NuLab idiocy. The money they threw at it was a major driver for HPI and high rents.

The high rent = child poverty meme could be quite interesting and not one I've heard being used by any campaign group.

Edited by Jack's Creation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know there's no "quick look" benefit top up chart that shows the points at which benefits cease and you're left on your own.

Can't remember child tax credit figures either for cutoffs.

I spose LHA is a good indicator of how much housing costs - the argument that high rents keeps people on benefits has never really been used very much though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is, at least in part. The poorest in the country must also pay their tithes to the landed.

This is hardly a new angle though, its just Ricardo's law of rent which is over 200 years old.

Basically, landowners will demand as payment everything except the amount that can be earned on the most unproductive land.

Whatever you can earn living in a jobless estate, is what you can earn living anywhere. This ensures that people without any saleable skills or qualifications will be kept in poverty, regardless of the growth in the economy.

This is also why you can never 'regenerate' an area, or at least why it won't benefit anyone except the already wealthy.

As a case in point, the London olympics may generate jobs, but those jobs will push up rents (and house prices) to the point at which the net earnings will be the same.

A huge amount of the Olympic spend is being directly as a gift to local landowners. I suspect this is why we are having the olympics in the first place.

The same is true of all local investment, from the high-speed rail lines to charitable giving to deprived neighbourhoods. All will be stolen by landowners.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great idea, no doubt.

Lefties will oppose it as it means less meddling in the (dirty word approaching) 'market'. Cameron will oppose it as his chums do well out of the high cost economy. Parliamentarians as a unit will find it unpalatable as many of them have property interests.

As far as a politician's mindset is concerned, it is far better to be seen to be trying to solve a problem, rather than have no problem in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High rents create the average working person to have less in their pockets to spend on their children.

High rents create the average non-working person to have less in their pockets to spend unless they have more children.

High rents make the landowners, bankers, and some borrowers richer......it makes the renters and the tax payers poorer. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High rents create the average working person to have less in their pockets to spend on their children.

High rents create the average non-working person to have less in their pockets to spend unless they have more children.

High rents make the landowners, bankers, and some borrowers richer......it makes the renters and the tax payers poorer. ;)

Affordable rents for all workers would mean paying far less out in HB. Welfare could be stripped back to what it was intended to do in the first place - i.e. a safety net for people who have lost their jobs and need a little help. It's possible for people to afford to live without benefits, even if they are on the minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable rents for all workers would mean paying far less out in HB. Welfare could be stripped back to what it was intended to do in the first place - i.e. a safety net for people who have lost their jobs and need a little help. It's possible for people to afford to live without benefits, even if they are on the minimum wage.

They know you are right, we know you are right......but right does not come into it when making money is concerned. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They know you are right, we know you are right......but right does not come into it when making money is concerned. ;)

The Genie has escaped, too many people have been persuaded by untold riches if they invest in property. “If you owe a bank thousands, you have a problem; owe a bank millions, the bank has a problem.” And that's where we're at. Government cannot afford to let multiple property investors take the hit, because ultimately the banks will. What an utterly f***ed up situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to see Cameron will be a waste of time, Cameron is a banking shill of the highest order. The reason Joe Sixpack is struggling and is going to struggle much more is the fact so many spivs have sucked so much money out of the system and continue to do so.

Some people need to go to work to make real money, others simply buy a pile of bricks or place a no lose bet on anything they like that is then backed by the taxpayer should it all go wrong.

Since Merv is standing ready to devalue all our money so his banking and BTL buddies can keep their ill gotten gains then the average man of the street, working a real job for real money is going to find it harder and harder to get by as the money he earns buys less and less.

Welcome to serfdom...

Good post!

Back to the OP... I think this could be a good angle. When it comes to anything PC, multiculture, sexual diversity, poverty - anything like that... the lefties go rabid... by linking high house prices & rents to lefty ideals could be the way forward. Certainly common sense hasn't worked so far - we need to be more sensationalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable rents for all workers would mean paying far less out in HB. Welfare could be stripped back to what it was intended to do in the first place - i.e. a safety net for people who have lost their jobs and need a little help. It's possible for people to afford to live without benefits, even if they are on the minimum wage.

It's possible in some areas, not all. Minimum wage in many areas wouldn't cover the basic bills and rent.

In my area, LHA on a 1-bed is £473/month. Minimum wage at (rounded) £6/hour is £12,480, which is a takehome of £900/month. With rent at about £500, income about £900, utilities/council tax about £200, travel to work about £100 and food about £100... that leaves £0.

A 2-bed place is £580/month.

I think rents grew to match housing benefits that the unemployed could get, which caused those amounts to go up, so rents went up. That and as houses were going up landlords needed to cover their mortgages, so the rents were higher. And everybody with an older house to rent saw the new rents being achieved and put theirs up. So housing benefit was increased to pay for these new higher rents ......

The LHA rate is set at one amount for a 50 mile radius of where I live, so you can't even go 3-4 miles up the road and get something a bit cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible in some areas, not all. Minimum wage in many areas wouldn't cover the basic bills and rent.

In my area, LHA on a 1-bed is £473/month. Minimum wage at (rounded) £6/hour is £12,480, which is a takehome of £900/month. With rent at about £500, income about £900, utilities/council tax about £200, travel to work about £100 and food about £100... that leaves £0.

A 2-bed place is £580/month.

I think rents grew to match housing benefits that the unemployed could get, which caused those amounts to go up, so rents went up. That and as houses were going up landlords needed to cover their mortgages, so the rents were higher. And everybody with an older house to rent saw the new rents being achieved and put theirs up. So housing benefit was increased to pay for these new higher rents ......

The LHA rate is set at one amount for a 50 mile radius of where I live, so you can't even go 3-4 miles up the road and get something a bit cheaper.

Marginally under £900 from wageslips I've seen. NI deductions also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable rents for all workers would mean paying far less out in HB. Welfare could be stripped back to what it was intended to do in the first place - i.e. a safety net for people who have lost their jobs and need a little help. It's possible for people to afford to live without benefits, even if they are on the minimum wage.

In reality a person on NMW would struggle to live and run a house if the rent was zero. Bills , food, travel to work, toiletries,clothes, would take up most leaving very little to have a social life , holiday , enjoy Christmas, clebrate their birthday and live a normal life. We seem to have a fixation with how people should be able to live on the NMW , but let's not forget it is a MINIMUM .

In reality I would guess most people on NMW are either living at home with parent's, the second earner in the household or semi retired. NMW and runing a house do not go together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible in some areas, not all. Minimum wage in many areas wouldn't cover the basic bills and rent.

In my area, LHA on a 1-bed is £473/month. Minimum wage at (rounded) £6/hour is £12,480, which is a takehome of £900/month. With rent at about £500, income about £900, utilities/council tax about £200, travel to work about £100 and food about £100... that leaves £0.

A 2-bed place is £580/month.

I think rents grew to match housing benefits that the unemployed could get, which caused those amounts to go up, so rents went up. That and as houses were going up landlords needed to cover their mortgages, so the rents were higher. And everybody with an older house to rent saw the new rents being achieved and put theirs up. So housing benefit was increased to pay for these new higher rents ......

The LHA rate is set at one amount for a 50 mile radius of where I live, so you can't even go 3-4 miles up the road and get something a bit cheaper.

This kind of thought process just goes to show how far we've come.

A generation ago, you wouldn't even begin to aspire to that kind of lifestyle on a below-average income and no external support (like BoMD). Your rent for a room in a grotty share would take up a similar proportion of your take-home. And spending that much on utilities or travel would be a luxury of the well-to-do.

Going back to myself in the 1980s, 1/9th of my income on food is the only one of those discretionary figures that doesn't look totally extravagant (I enjoy my food)! In fact, same applies even today when I'm not short of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality a person on NMW would struggle to live and run a house if the rent was zero. Bills , food, travel to work, toiletries,clothes, would take up most leaving very little to have a social life , holiday , enjoy Christmas, clebrate their birthday and live a normal life. We seem to have a fixation with how people should be able to live on the NMW , but let's not forget it is a MINIMUM .

Trying to pretend hundreds of pounds in rent rent makes no odds is a bit arithmatically futile and ..odd.. frankly. Many workers don't clear minimum wage after rent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I like the idea that this is some sort of 'angle' or debating tactic.

High land costs increase the cost of living, not just through the rent you pay yourself, but through the rent paid by business which then gets passed on to you. We lose jobs that are moved offshore to avoid the costs, and then pay the real extra costs of shipping all the goods back.

Land prices adjust until the poorest are left with nothing simply because no-one can undercut the land-owning cartel. They get to charge as much as the market can possibly bear. This is a key reason why the gap between rich and poor is increasing as the wealthy are able to accumulate most of the growth and the poor get none.

This isn't a new theory, its a pretty well established idea, and I have yet to hear a counter-argument.

Unfortunately, the economy cannot support so many unproductive rent seekers, and so now government has to step in to bail-out the leeches adding further to the plight of the poorest.

The idea transcends left and right wing politics. It is government interference in free markets, which damages the economy. It also increases poverty and amounts to a large scale class war. It hurts real capitalists and workers equally.

There is only one reason for doing nothing about it - corruption and the personal wealth of the political class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this site:

Poverty and housing costs

About 3 million people in the UK live in poverty simply because of their housing costs.

I haven't look too closely at the definitions, but I suspect this is a huge underestimate. It doesn't take into account the increased unemployment that expensive land cause, plus the additional costs we pay for everything as a result.

Sometimes I wonder where most people think all the money spent on houses, and all those huge profits, actually come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable rents for all workers would mean paying far less out in HB. Welfare could be stripped back to what it was intended to do in the first place - i.e. a safety net for people who have lost their jobs and need a little help. It's possible for people to afford to live without benefits, even if they are on the minimum wage.

Quite the opposite. Rents are high because of housing benefit. Cut housing benefit to £100 per month and watch the rents plunge. Will the landlords have the property sit empty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I like the idea that this is some sort of 'angle' or debating tactic.

A good journo will pick up on a good angle and run with it. I bet there are loads itching to start running with "it's good for house prices to fall" type stories but want a coherent argument.

If you can actively relate child poverty to the high rents and house prices then you've got a great argument. It's one all the sadsack left wing monkies who bleat on about "child poverty" can put in their pipe and smoke it.

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.

  • 284 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.