Housing Benefit Highest Ever.

[durhamborn]

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/stats_summary_may13.pdf

5.08 million claiments now of housing benefits,thats the highest EVER.It was 4.74 million in 2010 when the government were elected.

Doing a great job of welfare reform is IDS

3.28 million getting DLA so 1 in 15 people in the UK cant walk 50 metres.56 thousand more than last year.

Pensioners as well up over 1 million in 12 years.

Lots of other stats in there but the housing benefit one is huge.

[SuperChimp]

5.08 million claiments now of housing benefits,thats the highest EVER.It was 4.74 million in 2010 when the government were elected.

I think the bill will continue to rise as BTLers seek higher returns to beat inflation.

Through QE the government has lowered returns on gilts. This in turn has pushed pension companies to increase investment in property and the stock markets. Some share owners have been beginning to realize that they could lose one hell of a lot when the stock market corrects and are moving their investments into safer assets such as housing.

An unfortunate state of affairs all in all but this is what happens when you give gamblers the power to create money.

[Snugglybear]

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/stats_summary_may13.pdf

5.08 million claiments now of housing benefits,thats the highest EVER.It was 4.74 million in 2010 when the government were elected.

Doing a great job of welfare reform is IDS

3.28 million getting DLA so 1 in 15 people in the UK cant walk 50 metres.56 thousand more than last year.

Pensioners as well up over 1 million in 12 years.

Lots of other stats in there but the housing benefit one is huge.

The number of working households getting housing benefit doubled between 2008 and 2012 (up to 903,440 in May 2012). A combination of rising rents and rising numbers of poorly paid jobs is contributing to the increase.

[Harry Monk]

The essential point to grasp is that Housing Benefit isn't something paid to unemployed/disabled people etc, it's a State Benefit paid to BTL landlords.

[MongerOfDoom]

http://statistics.dw...mmary_may13.pdf

5.08 million claiments now of housing benefits,thats the highest EVER.It was 4.74 million in 2010 when the government were elected.

Doing a great job of welfare reform is IDS

So what is he supposed to do? It's someone else's job to get the economy going, and indeed it was yet another person's job not to get it into the state it now is in the first place.

The reforms so far have reduced housing benefit rather than remove it entirely from some claimants. I think that is broadly sensible, particularly as what matters is the total cost. Strangely, the pdf you linked to is very quiet on that front ....

[durhamborn]

The number of working households getting housing benefit doubled between 2008 and 2012 (up to 903,440 in May 2012). A combination of rising rents and rising numbers of poorly paid jobs is contributing to the increase.

Yes and the fact benefit rates have been rising much faster than wages sucking more people into means tested benefits.

To think 5million + are claiming is huge when you consider thats just claiments themselves not the household so we are probably looking at between 20%-30% of the population having its housing paid for in full or in part by taxpayers.

This shows th housing crisis is everyones problem.

[MongerOfDoom]

The essential point to grasp is that Housing Benefit isn't something paid to unemployed/disabled people etc, it's a State Benefit paid to BTL landlords.

Not that nonsense again. Do you really think that BTLs would be the most severely affected group if housing benefit was discontinued? Or do you think that a BTL is a good investment in this climate because it entitles you to "state benefits"?

If there is a state benefit for landlords, it's QE.

[durhamborn]

So what is he supposed to do? It's someone else's job to get the economy going, and indeed it was yet another person's job not to get it into the state it now is in the first place.

The reforms so far have reduced housing benefit rather than remove it entirely from some claimants. I think that is broadly sensible, particularly as what matters is the total cost. Strangely, the pdf you linked to is very quiet on that front ....

He picked the low fruit yes,but there has been no welfare reform at all that solves anything.None.Labour of course caused most of the damage.The ironic thing is the two reforms IDS offered yesterday (limits of 2 children for benefits and no housing allowance for under 25s) are perhaps the two best reforms he could make to help reform welfare but the treasury turned them down.

As for social housing most now is run for the benefit of the people who work there hence the massive inflation+ rent increases hitting year after year.Thats sucking more and more working tenants into housing benefit as their wages cant keep pace with the demands of the ALMOs.

[Democorruptcy]

Why work when it doesn't pay enough to put a roof over your head?

Why save when interest rates are below inflation? If less people have savings then there are more entitled to benefits.

[silver surfer]

Isn't it correct that about three times as much money is spent on housing benefit as is spent on all forms of unemployment benefit combined?

What a massive distortion of the housing market.

But fixing that, even if the political will really was there, would take decades. It's politically impossible to just turn the HB tap off, so all you could do is slow down the rate of HB increase below RPI, and hope that it withers away over the course of a generation.

[durhamborn]

Isn't it correct that about three times as much money is spent on housing benefit as is spent on all forms of unemployment benefit combined?

What a massive distortion of the housing market.

But fixing that, even if the political will really was there, would take decades. It's politically impossible to just turn the HB tap off, so all you could do is slow down the rate of HB increase below RPI, and hope that it withers away over the course of a generation.

There are other ways to do it as well mainly around how many children you can claim for.If that was limited to 2 and then below average wage increases it would slowly lower rents and HB.

The problem is even social housing rents now go to pay massive wage bills and perks.They have been increasing at inflation+ for a long time.Its a complete mess from every side.

[mfp123]

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/stats_summary_may13.pdf

5.08 million claiments now of housing benefits,thats the highest EVER.It was 4.74 million in 2010 when the government were elected.

Doing a great job of welfare reform is IDS

3.28 million getting DLA so 1 in 15 people in the UK cant walk 50 metres.56 thousand more than last year.

Pensioners as well up over 1 million in 12 years.

Lots of other stats in there but the housing benefit one is huge.

bear in mind though that the population is growing at a rate of around 400-500,000 people per year.

in 3 years there are an extra 1.2-1.5 million people living in the UK.

also we know the economy is flat and unemployment is flat, so given a rising population its about normal.

[Damik]

He picked the low fruit yes,but there has been no welfare reform at all that solves anything. None.Labour of course caused most of the damage.The ironic thing is the two reforms IDS offered yesterday (limits of 2 children for benefits and no housing allowance for under 25s) are perhaps the two best reforms he could make to help reform welfare but the treasury turned them down.

As for social housing most now is run for the benefit of the people who work there hence the massive inflation+ rent increases hitting year after year.Thats sucking more and more working tenants into housing benefit as their wages cant keep pace with the demands of the ALMOs.

It is not simple to fight against BBC, Guardian and Labor and take free money from people - pensions, benefits, public jobs

e.g. in Greece no political party reformed anything and it ended in state bankrupcy

with the current deficit we will be in the same position as Greece sooner rather then later

[(Blizzard)]

Not that nonsense again. Do you really think that BTLs would be the most severely affected group if housing benefit was discontinued?

In the long term, yes. Do you really think that BTLs weren't the main beneficiary of the housing benefit increases?

Or do you think that a BTL is a good investment in this climate because it entitles you to "state benefits"?

The ability to collect land rent is a state benefit.

Housing benefit just makes this even worse.

It certainly increases the profits of BTL. What other effect do you think it could possibly have?

If there is a state benefit for landlords, it's QE.

If!

Lowering housing benefit does not force any landlord to evict any family. This is the classic 'look what you've made me do' defence, popularised by wife-beaters.

It is landlords that put people onto the street, not the Westminster government.

I couldn't do that myself, but unfortunately we live in an evil world.

Edited May 29, 2013 by (Blizzard)

[Executive Sadman]

So what is he supposed to do? It's someone else's job to get the economy going, and indeed it was yet another person's job not to get it into the state it now is in the first place.

The reforms so far have reduced housing benefit rather than remove it entirely from some claimants. I think that is broadly sensible, particularly as what matters is the total cost. Strangely, the pdf you linked to is very quiet on that front ....

Let people buy land at agricultural + a small premium and build themselves houses?

Oh wait, thats a free market thing, the tories will never go for that.

[winkie]

Isn't it correct that about three times as much money is spent on housing benefit as is spent on all forms of unemployment benefit combined?

What a massive distortion of the housing market.

But fixing that, even if the political will really was there, would take decades. It's politically impossible to just turn the HB tap off, so all you could do is slow down the rate of HB increase below RPI, and hope that it withers away over the course of a generation.

Add the pension bill to that and the way things are being allowed to go there will be a few people left supporting the vast majority and the deficit will keep increasing.......I think many people are happy to give money away knowing they will have access to part of it, but many have never had access to any of it directly or indirectly or claimed a penny of it....only ever paid for it.....just saying.

[durhamborn]

I think the key thing here is the benefit figures arent far from a tipping point.

So far the government has pushed the pension age up to try to stem the flow of money and that has started to work.However that cant be extended.Already many people who paid in are seeing the age pushed back and back.If you look at the figures it states although there is a saving on pensions from the pension age pushing back there is an increase in other benefits.People are simply "retiring" on ESA instead of pension.

The way Labour structured the welfare system to ensure working people were sucked in has meant even in periods of economic recovery the benefit bill still goes up.

Under the present system and the "reforms" coming in like UC benefits will keep going up.The increase in income now for over half the population in working extra is tiny if anything.

Whats interesting though is im hearing that Millibands team writing the new manifesto are all from the BlueLabour camp and are looking at serious reform of welfare.Could the left at last woke up to the fact that if they dont reform welfare themselves it will destroy itelf?

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

I think the key thing here is the benefit figures arent far from a tipping point.

So far the government has pushed the pension age up to try to stem the flow of money and that has started to work.However that cant be extended.Already many people who paid in are seeing the age pushed back and back.If you look at the figures it states although there is a saving on pensions from the pension age pushing back there is an increase in other benefits.People are simply "retiring" on ESA instead of pension.

The way Labour structured the welfare system to ensure working people were sucked in has meant even in periods of economic recovery the benefit bill still goes up.

Under the present system and the "reforms" coming in like UC benefits will keep going up.The increase in income now for over half the population in working extra is tiny if anything.

Whats interesting though is im hearing that Millibands team writing the new manifesto are all from the BlueLabour camp and are looking at serious reform of welfare.Could the left at last woke up to the fact that if they dont reform welfare themselves it will destroy itelf?

Current govt spending review covers less than half of govt spending due to welfare obligations and ring fencing.

Where is that tipping point? When public spending sacred cows are what? 60% 70% more?

[Damik]

I think the key thing here is the benefit figures arent far from a tipping point.

So far the government has pushed the pension age up to try to stem the flow of money and that has started to work.However that cant be extended.Already many people who paid in are seeing the age pushed back and back.If you look at the figures it states although there is a saving on pensions from the pension age pushing back there is an increase in other benefits.People are simply "retiring" on ESA instead of pension.

The way Labour structured the welfare system to ensure working people were sucked in has meant even in periods of economic recovery the benefit bill still goes up.

Under the present system and the "reforms" coming in like UC benefits will keep going up.The increase in income now for over half the population in working extra is tiny if anything.

Whats interesting though is im hearing that Millibands team writing the new manifesto are all from the BlueLabour camp and are looking at serious reform of welfare.Could the left at last woke up to the fact that if they dont reform welfare themselves it will destroy itelf?

I would argue that this kind of welfare, which covers over half of the society (people earning less than 35/40k pa), is also inflationary. Especially if some of the benefits are increased based on inflation.

As per my previous post: the Greek scenario is quite probable for UK as well. Or big devaluation caused by an aggressive QE.

I am still surprised, that markets have not increased the cost of UK government debt ??? Like even Portugal is in better position than UK ...

[SarahBell]

The essential point to grasp is that Housing Benefit isn't something paid to unemployed/disabled people etc, it's a State Benefit paid to BTL landlords.

No it's a charge for a service that someone uses.

They could alter the HB by reducing LHA payments to landlords. Oh wait they did that in the private sector, but the changes to social housing are causing uproar.

[wonderpup]

Whats interesting though is im hearing that Millibands team writing the new manifesto are all from the BlueLabour camp and are looking at serious reform of welfare.Could the left at last woke up to the fact that if they dont reform welfare themselves it will destroy itelf?

I think the very concept of 'welfare reform' is flawed because it posits the notion that welfare exists in separate space within the wider economic reality.

What's required is a reform of the entire relationship between capital and labour and the way that gains are shared. At present we have the ongoing spectacle of hugely profitable corporates magically making their profits disappear overseas to avoid tax, while paying in many cases wages so low that they require state subsidies- paid from taxes to which they do not contribute.

So increasingly Capital is keeping the gains from economic activity and less and less is being put back in-either as wages or taxes.

The increasing welfare bill is in part a reflection of this upward mobility of capital which has been facilitated by globalisation and deregulation of finance- and it's in this context in must be viewed.

In one sense benefits represent a deal that has been made with the great unwashed- the deal being that the 1% (ish) will garner fabulous wealth, while the increasing number of losers in this arrangement are given just enough to lead lives that are at least tolerable by the standards of their society.

People like IDS attack the adaptation of the benefit classes to their situation as evidence of their degeneracy- but he perhaps overlooks another aspect of that adaptation- it serves to preserve a degree of social cohesion in those places where the globalist dream became a nightmare.

So if 'benefit reform' consists entirely of kicking out at that somnolent mass it will interesting to see what occurs should those sleepers awake en masse to the sh*t that has become their lives.

[SuperChimp]

I don't think there will ever be a tipping point as all countries are so heavily in debt that there is no one who could reasonably come to collect our country's debt. The the benefits bill will keep rising forever and money will keep being printed to pay for it, so that a few million landlords can stay rich whilst everyone else suffers. Beyond crazy.

No, there will come a point when the money supply can not be expanded quickly enough to cover outstanding interest payments. This will lead to deflation and then wide-spread bankruptcies and the collapse of the currency.

No more pensions, savings or shares. Those with physical assets will be protected.

Money is not wealth.

[Snugglybear]

<snip> So if 'benefit reform' consists entirely of kicking out at that somnolent mass it will interesting to see what occurs should those sleepers awake en masse to the sh*t that has become their lives.

The German finance minister is betting that a revolution will occur if you cut off welfare - see the story on the HPC blog on Tuesday (28th).

It's very difficult to keep a population quiet without the old 'panem et circenses'.

[(Blizzard)]

No it's a charge for a service that someone uses.

Landlords do not provide land.

Perhaps I should get the government to pay me to provide your air supply? You know, as a service.

[durhamborn]

I think the very concept of 'welfare reform' is flawed because it posits the notion that welfare exists in separate space within the wider economic reality.

What's required is a reform of the entire relationship between capital and labour and the way that gains are shared. At present we have the ongoing spectacle of hugely profitable corporates magically making their profits disappear overseas to avoid tax, while paying in many cases wages so low that they require state subsidies- paid from taxes to which they do not contribute.

So increasingly Capital is keeping the gains from economic activity and less and less is being put back in-either as wages or taxes.

The increasing welfare bill is in part a reflection of this upward mobility of capital which has been facilitated by globalisation and deregulation of finance- and it's in this context in must be viewed.

In one sense benefits represent a deal that has been made with the great unwashed- the deal being that the 1% (ish) will garner fabulous wealth, while the increasing number of losers in this arrangement are given just enough to lead lives that are at least tolerable by the standards of their society.

People like IDS attack the adaptation of the benefit classes to their situation as evidence of their degeneracy- but he perhaps overlooks another aspect of that adaptation- it serves to preserve a degree of social cohesion in those places where the globalist dream became a nightmare.

So if 'benefit reform' consists entirely of kicking out at that somnolent mass it will interesting to see what occurs should those sleepers awake en masse to the sh*t that has become their lives.

Couldnt agree more and thats the crux.Its the main reason i think a CI is the way to go.The government need to find a way to stop mass poverty but at the same time not enable business to have its wages mostly paid by the tax payer.