Kensington And Chelsea Council Statement On Housing Benefit

[CrashConnoisseur]

Just to confuse the issue the Treasury likes to produce documents which give numbers in, for example, "2005 pounds".

They do, but this document isn't one of them.

[tomandlu]

The title of this topic is misleading. The quote is NOT from Kensington and Chelsea Council, but from George Osborne. It's political spin unsupported by the facts. The cost of HB today forms a smaller proportion of GDP than it did throughout the 1990s.

'Impact of the changes to Housing Benefit announced in the June 2010 Budget' [June 2010]:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmworpen/memo/hb/hb72a.htm

Hmm... doesn't GDP include house prices?

[CrashConnoisseur]

I was quoting somebody else's figure actually (£2000 P/W). Of course this isn't the norm, but it definitely does happen and probably more than you think.

The Daily Telegraph did some research (yes that!) to find out how often it does happen...

'Housing benefit reform: A toxic battleground':

http://www.telegraph...ttleground.html

The Daily Telegraph contacted all 33 local authorities in London, the only part of the country where families can claim £2,000 per week, to check the figures.

In the 24 boroughs that responded, which include the two most expensive, three families claim £2,000 per week (all of them in Westminster), while only five of the councils that responded had families claiming more than £1,000, amounting to 168 families. Another 3,618 families in 15 boroughs claim more than £500 per week.

So while Mr Osborne is right in saying there are families claiming £104,000 per year, the numbers are tiny compared with the 4.5 million families nationwide who receive housing benefit.

Edited July 6, 2011 by CrashConnoisseur

[Tired of Waiting]

Wow, I was doing some research and I came across this unbelievably honest page on the Kensington and Chelsea council website ...

http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/newsroom/councilstatements/statementonhousingbenefit.aspx

Well at least it is going in the right direction now, with the 30th percentile limit. But too slowly, IMO. Though I understand the gov's political limits.

And we still have some serious problems: first and foremost is the fact that Local Housing Allowances are set by local authorities but paid by the central government. LAs have a vested interest in bringing central government money to the area. (Obviously for Kensington And Chelsea the "trade-off" is not worth it.)

Anyway, it's better than in May 2010, when we had this thread here:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=143597&view=findpost&p=2535945

IIRC that thread helped to inspire a HPCer (was it tomandlu?) to write a brilliant letter to his MP - so good that his MP forwarded it to IDS, who did read it, and replied to it. Great collective work. We may have helped the new policies a little. Landlords are receiving around 5% less now.

OK, I've Googled it, tomandlu's letter, and IDS' reply:

LINK: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=149648&view=findpost&p=2679839

IDS' letter is attached there too.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[CrashConnoisseur]

Hmm... doesn't GDP include house prices?

Then as now.

[tomandlu]

Then as now.

Phew. Thanks goodness we didn't have a huge bubble in house prices then...

[Tired of Waiting]

Any radical and positive change means facing up to families losing their homes. Let's hope the government are big enough not to U-turn.

The scaremongering about "homelessness" is total exaggeration. I bet in virtually all cases the LHA reduction will just mean having to move less than a mile away, and/or to a property with 1 bedroom fewer. And re. the number of bedrooms, see tomandlu's letter, linked from my post above. Excellent really.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

Hmm... doesn't GDP include house prices?

There you are. I was just talking about you, post #30, above.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Odd thing is, there's no arguing with some people. Close members of my family are pretty open about their support of this system, stating that (more or less) 'If we overpay some/pay undeserving cases to ensure that one deserving case does not go without, then that's fine by me'. They also take the line that since this policy also increases diversity in traditional homogenous areas it is therefore a good thing which should be funded seemingly without limit to ensure that plumbers and admin staff can live in Chelsea beside lawyers etc.

They are fully paid-up Looney Lefties who never allow common sense to encroach on a f*cking stupid idea. When I asked why working people in small provincial towns across the UK ought to pay taxes for the capital's social engineering, they take the disdainful metropolitan leftie view that the provinces are beneath concern and ought to pay up because London is 'worth it'. You gotta hand it to them, the intellectual gymnastics required to arrive at that sort of attitude, from an initial position purportedly borne out of concern for the worst off in society, is quite a feat.

Their extreme nutty views have pretty much destroyed our relationship though. Unfortunately these views are not uncommon and their prevalence within the London left-wing middle class prickocracy, which includes the BBC, politicians etc, is responsible for many of the financial and social woes of the nation, I'd venture.

The selfishness of Socialism is boundless.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cheeznbreed

[Si1]

They are fully paid-up Looney Lefties who never allow common sense to encroach on a f*cking stupid idea.

[Tired of Waiting]

(...)

You gotta hand it to them, the intellectual gymnastics required to arrive at that sort of attitude, from an initial position purportedly borne out of concern for the worst off in society, is quite a feat.

(...)

Just brilliant. Classic.

Their extreme nutty views have pretty much destroyed our relationship though. Unfortunately these views are not uncommon and their prevalence within the London left-wing middle class prickocracy, which includes the BBC, politicians etc, is responsible for many of the financial and social woes of the nation, I'd venture.

The selfishness of Socialism is boundless.

Are they tax-payers? Private sector?

[The Floating World]

Well at least it is going in the right direction now, with the 30th percentile limit. But too slowly, IMO. Though I understand the gov's political limits.

And we still have some serious problems: first and foremost is the fact that Local Housing Allowances are set by local authorities but paid by the central government. LAs have a vested interest in bringing central government money to the area. (Obviously for Kensington And Chelsea the "trade-off" is not worth it.)

Anyway, it's better than in May 2010, when we had this thread here:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=143597&view=findpost&p=2535945

IIRC that thread helped to inspire a HPCer (was it tomandlu?) to write a brilliant letter to his MP - so good that his MP forwarded it to IDS, who did read it, and replied to it posted reply as well. Great collective work. We may have helped the new policies a little. Landlords are receiving around 5% less now.

OK, I've Googled it, tomandlu's letter, and IDS' reply:

LINK: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=149648&view=findpost&p=2679839

IDS' letter is attached there too.

LHA rates are not set by the Local Authority. They are set by the Valuation Office Agency, i.e. central government. There would be a huge conflict of interests if LA's were involved in setting LHA rates. Local Authorities have absolutely no influence on the level of LHA.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Are they tax-payers? Private sector?

Yes, professional people, in private sector but their line of work encompassies public-sector work now and again. They are struggling debt-slaves, who recently bought a place in an area they don't even like that much because they couldn't afford to live more centrally. I wouldn't be surprised to see a repo in the future, and I get the impression that if they do not then they'll be living like monks to avoid it.

They are decent people alright and have genuine concerns, but mix a stiff dose of Socialism, a whiff of class warfare and an aggregate of monetary delusion/high-handed judgementalism, and the result is a perfect surface for the road to hell.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Couldn't think of any other way of putting it.

[Rare Bear]

I thought that buying votes went out in the 18th Century but here we have the Labour Party using taxpayer`s money to give it`s supporters hefty wedges of cash. Surely it should be illegal to obtain a financial advantage by voting for a particular party, the Government should set standards of behaviour only

http://en.wikipedia....Electoral_fraud

I think that in the 18th Century buying votes was a lot more honest. In those days you bought the votes with your oen money. These days you buy the votes with the money of the taxpayers who you think are least likely to vote for you.

[jammo]

Odd thing is, there's no arguing with some people. Close members of my family are pretty open about their support of this system, stating that (more or less) 'If we overpay some/pay undeserving cases to ensure that one deserving case does not go without, then that's fine by me'. They also take the line that since this policy also increases diversity in traditional homogenous areas it is therefore a good thing which should be funded seemingly without limit to ensure that plumbers and admin staff can live in Chelsea beside lawyers etc.

They are fully paid-up Looney Lefties who never allow common sense to encroach on a f*cking stupid idea. When I asked why working people in small provincial towns across the UK ought to pay taxes for the capital's social engineering, they take the disdainful metropolitan leftie view that the provinces are beneath concern and ought to pay up because London is 'worth it'. You gotta hand it to them, the intellectual gymnastics required to arrive at that sort of attitude, from an initial position purportedly borne out of concern for the worst off in society, is quite a feat.

Their extreme nutty views have pretty much destroyed our relationship though. Unfortunately these views are not uncommon and their prevalence within the London left-wing middle class prickocracy, which includes the BBC, politicians etc, is responsible for many of the financial and social woes of the nation, I'd venture.

The selfishness of Socialism is boundless.

They're so left, they've come full circle. Just tell them you won't tolerate their right wing views anymore and to just shut up

[Laughing Gnome]

Any radical and positive change means facing up to families losing their homes. Let's hope the government are big enough not to U-turn.

Yes, you can face up to it can't you, you hero. And wouldn't that be big and brave of the government.

Are you hoping for a cheap blowjob or something?

[Sour Mash]

The scaremongering about "homelessness" is total exaggeration. I bet in virtually all cases the LHA reduction will just mean having to move less than a mile away, and/or to a property with 1 bedroom fewer. And re. the number of bedrooms, see tomandlu's letter, linked from my post above. Excellent really.

I suspect that LHA reduction will in many of these London cases just translate to a direct rent reduction.

It's pretty clear that landlords are pretty much the main beneficiaries of crazy housing benefit payouts.

[Tired of Waiting]

LHA rates are not set by the Local Authority. They are set by the Valuation Office Agency, i.e. central government. There would be a huge conflict of interests if LA's were involved in setting LHA rates. Local Authorities have absolutely no influence on the level of LHA.

I do hope you are right. But IIRC it was even worse than I've summarised above. IIRC the "data" (average local rents) is collected by Local Authorities consulting local letting agencies!

Can you please confirm that I am wrong? I will be very happy if I am. Really.

Any link?

[leicestersq]

Yes, you can face up to it can't you, you hero. And wouldn't that be big and brave of the government.

Are you hoping for a cheap blowjob or something?

Are you suggesting we continue as we are?

[Tired of Waiting]

I suspect that LHA reduction will in many of these London cases just translate to a direct rent reduction.

It's pretty clear that landlords are pretty much the main beneficiaries of crazy housing benefit payouts.

Yes, that too.

Nobody is going to be homeless 'cause they have only £26k/year - the UK average salary! Or millions would be homeless also!

[The Knimbies who say No]

They're so left, they've come full circle. Just tell them you won't tolerate their right wing views anymore and to just shut up

You've not heard the best of it though. Upon death, everyone should hand their homes over to the State for redistribution. No-one should consider their gross pay as 'theirs', only the net pay after tax/NI deductions. I am not kidding.

Just drives me to despair, it's not even worth arguing with.

[leicestersq]

Yes, that too.

Nobody is going to be homeless 'cause they have only £26k/year - the UK average salary! Or millions would be homeless also!

A fair few will have to move.

After all, it is those working who should get first choice of housing.

[Tired of Waiting]

A fair few will have to move.

After all, it is those working who should get first choice of housing.

Sure, either move area a bit and/or downsize a bit. Like I wrote here too: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=166208&view=findpost&p=3045981

It's not the end of the world.

After all they are receiving help, from working tax-payers. They can't "demand" to be housed in higher standards than the average working tax-payers can afford themselves. This is just basic stuff really.

It's mind boggling that some people tries to argue against that £26k/year limit.

[jammo]

You've not heard the best of it though. Upon death, everyone should hand their homes over to the State for redistribution. No-one should consider their gross pay as 'theirs', only the net pay after tax/NI deductions. I am not kidding.

Just drives me to despair, it's not even worth arguing with.

Just agree with them, it's the safest option. When they harp on about redistributing a dead person's house, just add enphusiastically not to forget their shoes. With the gross salary thing, just take it one step further (as it's already too far, but by making it adsurd even to them they may shut up?). Mention that in the 24th century in Star Trek, Picard says they no longer work for money at all. Then you could just spend all night persuading them to do some voluntary work (there's plenty to choose from as well).