Impact Of Housing Benefit Changes 'worse Than Feared'

[iamnumerate]

Why are you only talking about these matters now though? Were you worried about spare bedrooms 10 years ago or even 5? And if not, why not?

Yes I have always thought it that was unfair ever since as a student I rented a room from council house tenants for more than they paid in rent. Which was 15 years ago.

I get a little upset that the Duke of Westminster gets thousands for merely owning land. No one is interested in talking about that. Once again, I wonder why?

Why not start a thread on it, if you want to? I think land should be taxed fairly. I don't as you seem to be advocating think he should get £0 for having it. I think he should get a rent but the land should be taxed fairly. I believe in a Land Value Tax.

BTW if you start a thread on it, I won't keep introducing other subjects just to avoid the topic. It seems a rather intellectually dishonest thing to do.

[iamnumerate]

The trick is connect the issues to the right causation.

So if we take the following two propositions;

1) The world financial collapse was caused by social tenants with spare bedrooms.

2) The world financial collapse was caused by out of control lending by bankers.

Most people would probably agree that proposition (2) the most likely.

The collapse in the financial system was caused by (2).

The structural deficit was caused by spending more than we earn even in the good years. (1) is one of the many many causes of this.

Also (1) is unfair considering there are others who needs those rooms more.

[Goat]

The trick is connect the issues to the right causation.

So if we take the following two propositions;

However ST's proposition is that we should ignore the obvious unfairness in the current social housing system because it didn't cause Lehmans.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Goat

[Liquid Goldfish]

However ST's proposition is that we should ignore the obvious unfairness in the current social housing system because it didn't cause Lehmans.

Depends if you like having your strings pulled by an Aussie spin doctor.

[iamnumerate]

Depends if you like having your strings pulled by an Aussie spin doctor.

It is nothing to do with spin or the daily mail etc, it is to do with the unfairness of people that we see in day to day who use the system to get better housing than if they were working. It is also because we are worried about what will happen if more and more people follow their examples.

[Liquid Goldfish]

It is nothing to do with spin or the daily mail etc, it is to do with the unfairness of people that we see in day to day who use the system to get better housing than if they were working. It is also because we are worried about what will happen if more and more people follow their examples.

You're going to be drip fed a list of similar little issues right up to election day.

[Ulfar]

Pot

Kettle

Resorting to name calling means the argument is lost.

On that note this discussion is no longer of interest.

[Si1]

Resorting to name calling means the argument is lost.

On that note this discussion is no longer of interest.

No it doesn't

[alexw]

However ST's proposition is that we should ignore the obvious unfairness in the current social housing system because it didn't cause Lehmans.

I think the issue is that the nation has a series of very fundamental wide-ranging problems. A lot of those posting on this thread see the government not using its pulpit and resources to focus on those issues (house building & banking reform being two very big ones), but rather attempting to distract and deflect attention away from them.

So by all means add this bedroom thing to the governments to-do list, but damn well start with the core problems of our economy and economic-political system. When those are taken care start working your way down the rest of the list starting with the largest and highest impact ones first.

[porca misèria]

Why are you only talking about these matters now though? Were you worried about spare bedrooms 10 years ago or even 5? And if not, why not?

Yes. And 30 years ago.

Well, spare bedrooms as such are a red herring. What bothers me is taxes going to fund a parasitic class not merely to live, but to get luxuries many taxpayers can't hope to afford.

I get a little upset that the Duke of Westminster gets thousands for merely owning land. No one is interested in talking about that. Once again, I wonder why?

Pretty-much the same answer: benefits for landowners are a scandal. Indeed, not unrelated, in that money going to 'the poor' serve to prop up rents for the rich and prices paid by the hardworking taxpayer to compete in the market.

(I don't know about the Duke of Westminster in particular, although I understand he has a vast ancestral property empire).

You are discussing it, because the government dictates the agenda. I'd rather discuss things the government doesn't want me to discuss, let alone think about.

Nonsense. We're discussing it because someone posted on HPC. Tell us something new about another subject and maybe we'll discuss that. Bolivian planes? Central bankers? Politicians from [insert country here]?

A few weeks ago there was a scandal about lobbying and "something was going to be done. " Its all gone strangely quiet again.I assume their Lordships have stopped stuffing their back pockets with cash from foreign powers now.

Most headlines don't last forever (thank goodness). I expect you can follow the story even after the headlines have moved on, if you care about it.

Edited July 3, 2013 by porca misèria

[Dorkins]

I think the issue is that the nation has a series of very fundamental wide-ranging problems. A lot of those posting on this thread see the government not using its pulpit and resources to focus on those issues (house building & banking reform being two very big ones), but rather attempting to distract and deflect attention away from them.

So by all means add this bedroom thing to the governments to-do list, but damn well start with the core problems of our economy and economic-political system. When those are taken care start working your way down the rest of the list starting with the largest and highest impact ones first.

Fair comment, the bedroom tax should not have been a priority when there is so much else that needs sorting out. Sadly it reflects the weakness of this government that this is about as radical as it gets when it comes to welfare reform. I have no idea why David Cameron wanted to be PM, he doesn't seem to want to actually change anything now he's there.

[pl1]

Halting all immigration tomorrow would still leave the huge imbalance between supply and demand in the South-East which has built up over the past decade. What solutions would you favour?

Read what I said. I said having a sensible immigration policy not a halt to all immigration & I wasn't the one who let several million people into the South-East in the last decade without building extra homes for them. A reversal of immigration would be a start but we are not going to get that all the while we are in the EU, they will keep comming. Before you spout off, I accept this is just one aspect of high house prices and I didn't cause it, nor did you, but we both have to live with it.

[thecrashingisles]

Read what I said. I said having a sensible immigration policy not a halt to all immigration & I wasn't the one who let several million people into the South-East in the last decade without building extra homes for them. A reversal of immigration would be a start but we are not going to get that all the while we are in the EU, they will keep comming. Before you spout off, I accept this is just one aspect of high house prices and I didn't cause it, nor did you, but we both have to live with it.

Housing pressure in the South-East isn't just about migration from outside the UK but within it as well.

[Tired of Waiting]

Corrected for Marx.

Brilliant.

[Tired of Waiting]

The collapse in the financial system was caused by (2).

The structural deficit was caused by spending more than we earn even in the good years. (1) is one of the many many causes of this.

Also (1) is unfair considering there are others who needs those rooms more.

If I may suggest a middle ground here, the bubble economy was financing an inflated welfare state, as the first popped, the second has to be trimmed.

.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Tired of Waiting

[Liquid Goldfish]

If I may suggest a middle ground here, the bubble economy was financing an inflated welfare state, as the first popped, the second has to be trimmed.

.

The problem with that analysis is that all the hatred is being stirred up against those on out of work benefits. And their benefits were actually falling. When the crisis hit there were more than a million fewer people claiming out of work benefits than in 1997 and a million and a half fewer than in 1992. There's still 1.2 million fewer than in 1992 and £8 billion less in being claimed in real terms.

[Tired of Waiting]

The problem with that analysis is that all the hatred is being stirred up against those on out of work benefits. And their benefits were actually falling. When the crisis hit there were more than a million fewer people claiming out of work benefits than in 1997 and a million and a half fewer than in 1992. There's still 1.2 million fewer than in 1992 and £8 billion less in being claimed in real terms.

I think the benefit that went up the most in that period was housing benefit. Though I don't have data at hand (and I had some wine, which is fogging things a little, sorry.)

Anyway, back to my old "mantras", I think one of our main root problems is housing shortage, distorting everything, from benefits to our international competitiveness (see my sig. and all that).

[The Knimbies who say No]

The problem with that analysis is that all the hatred is being stirred up against those on out of work benefits. And their benefits were actually falling. When the crisis hit there were more than a million fewer people claiming out of work benefits than in 1997 and a million and a half fewer than in 1992. There's still 1.2 million fewer than in 1992 and £8 billion less in being claimed in real terms.

The word "hatred" is hyperbole thrown around by people wanting to protect clear injustices in the system. You can question priorities, but hatred it most certainly is not.

Edited July 3, 2013 by cheeznbreed

[Liquid Goldfish]

I think the benefit that went up the most in that period was housing benefit. Though I don't have data at hand (and I had some wine, which is fogging things a little, sorry.)

Anyway, back to my old "mantras", I think one of our main root problems is housing shortage, distorting everything, from benefits to our international competitiveness (see my sig. and all that).

I actually think state pensions went up the most (but I don't really think of that as a "benefit")

Then support for those on low wages went up from £3 billion to £23 billion!!! - as Family Credit became Tax Credits

And I think housing benefit doubled from £12 billion to just under £25 billion.

And DLA increased an awful lot - but it was a brand new benefit in 1992 so that skews it a bit

[Liquid Goldfish]

The word "hatred" is hyperbole thrown around by people wanting to protect clear injustices in the system. You can question priorities, but hatred it most certainly is not.

It is hatred. It is not hyperbole. It is being stirred up deliberately with half truths, lies and cherry picked examples.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Anyway, back to my old "mantras", I think one of our main root problems is housing shortage, distorting everything, from benefits to our international competitiveness (see my sig. and all that).

I couldn't agree more.

[The Knimbies who say No]

It is hatred. It is not hyperbole. It is being stirred up deliberately with half truths, lies and cherry picked examples.

While I'm not going to vouch for the entire media and BB output devoted to this subject, I'd beg to differ in the main. The principle of the removal of the subsidy is perfectly sound, and it should be implemented. That is not hatred.

[@contradevian]

The problem with that analysis is that all the hatred is being stirred up against those on out of work benefits. And their benefits were actually falling. When the crisis hit there were more than a million fewer people claiming out of work benefits than in 1997 and a million and a half fewer than in 1992. There's still 1.2 million fewer than in 1992 and £8 billion less in being claimed in real terms.

Agreed. I don't have any real issue's with the concept of a "bedroom tax." There has been a tendency to regard a council house is for life, even when the brood which originally made a family eligible for one have long since deserted the family nest.

However ALMO's and housing associations have long since given support to people who want to downsize. The original occupants of the flat I now live in had downsized from a 3 bed council house nearby. They didn't stop long and eventually went into private sector housing.

This is really focus group politics. You get a room full of voters and ask loaded questions. "Do you think scroungers get too much money?" Answer yes obviously and "Do you think scroungers should have spare bedrooms" and once again the obvious answer is err no, and from this they extrapolate some kind of "divide and rule" policy, which is in fact a "dog whistle" response.

And its not even about saving money, as it will cost more for housing associations to intervene, and most of the down sized tenants will end up in private accommodation, and cost more to adapt the and so on.

Its also about the destruction of social housing which many believe to be a good thing and to some extent it is, if the market was actually allowed to function, rents and prices would fall to "affordable" levels, rather than sticking at a level where a significant proportion of the population can't afford the "market" rent.

Tories used to be massive council house builders in the 50's but I honestly don't believe social housing will withstand another full Tory term, and if you honestly think that booting out all the single mum's and scroungers is going to free up a massive pool of cheap housing for HPC posters, I'm afraid you are all sadly mistaken.

They would rather bulldoze empty property to keep prices up; the people that run this country are that criminally insane.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Agreed. I don't have any real issue's with the concept of a "bedroom tax." There has been a tendency to regard a council house is for life, even when the brood which originally made a family eligible for one have long since deserted the family nest.

However ALMO's and housing associations have long since given support to people who want to downsize. The original occupants of the flat I now live in had downsized from a 3 bed council house nearby. They didn't stop long and eventually went into private sector housing.

This is really focus group politics. You get a room full of voters and ask loaded questions. "Do you think scroungers get too much money?" Answer yes obviously and "Do you think scroungers should have spare bedrooms" and once again the obvious answer is err no, and from this they extrapolate some kind of "divide and rule" policy, which is in fact a "dog whistle" response.

And its not even about saving money, as it will cost more for housing associations to intervene, and most of the down sized tenants will end up in private accommodation, and cost more to adapt the and so on.

It's become almost totally political. I'm sure it will end up costing more in the end. But that's no longer important because he Tories and Lynton Crosby have discovered a rich seam of public opinion over benefits which looks likely to carry them to re-election. It's fascinating but horrible at the same time.

[Goat]

It's become almost totally political. I'm sure it will end up costing more in the end. But that's no longer important because he Tories and Lynton Crosby have discovered a rich seam of public opinion over benefits which looks likely to carry them to re-election. It's fascinating but horrible at the same time.

Who's actually been making the noise about the "bedroom tax"? Labour, not the conservatives.

It strikes me that the government has made a fairly minor and sensible change to the benefit system and would've been happy for it to slip through unnoticed. Labour have tried to blow it up into a big issue (hence the name bedroom tax when it is no such thing) but it's exploded in their faces because actually most people do think it's wrong for people to have spare rooms at the taxpayers expense whilst those in work are sharing.