Part-Time Workers On Housing Benefit Will Be Sanctioned

[crash2006]

Part-time workers judged to be doing too little to find full-time work face having their benefit for housing costs sanctioned by the government for the first time under universal credit.

Under the present system housing benefit is paid direct to landlords and sanctions can only be applied to out-of-work benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance or employment support allowance.

Landlords, already concerned by the prospect of universal credit being paid directly to tenants, have been lobbying the government to exempt the housing element of the single payment from sanctions in all circumstances.

Well the people got what they wanted hard line on benefits, I wonder what cuts have they made to corporate welfare system?

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/dwp-housing-benefit-will-be-sanctioned/7002330.article

[SuperChimp]

This links with the Universal Credit program being introduced. As other have pointed out, UC will pull 100s of thousands of people in to the benefit system who will then have to attend Jobcentres.

Many people who move off benefits claim WTC and continue to claim HB and CTC and in most cases are no worst off than on Jobseeker's Allowance. That is why the employment statistics are always so misleading. If you removed WTC a huge proportion of workers would be living below the poverty line.

Edited March 2, 2014 by SuperChimp

[billybong]

However, the Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed to Inside Housing that under the government’s flagship welfare reform, where a tenant is working less than 35 hours a week at minimum wage and is not eligible for JSA or ESA, the housing element can be sanctioned instead.

So all those people in retail and food businesses etc working part time with housing benefit and tax credits will have to start competing to do the extra hours. So if the likes of the burger outlets cooperate in the scheme (and say yes they want people always to work a full week instead of part time) then they could be shedding about 50% of their workers? who will then be competing with other lowish skilled UK workers as well as foreign workers looking for basic work?

Somehow it seems to conflict with government's "employment" figures being a top priority - so in reality it seems more like a ruse just to pretend that they're being tough on claimants?

If it's not just a ruse where are the spare jobs going to come from?

Edited March 2, 2014 by billybong

[Si1]

Well the people got what they wanted hard line on benefits, I wonder what cuts have they made to corporate welfare system?

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/dwp-housing-benefit-will-be-sanctioned/7002330.article

It's not actually a cut to benefits is it.

[Si1]

So all those people in retail and food businesses etc working part time with housing benefit and tax credits will have to start competing to do the extra hours. So if the likes of the burger outlets cooperate in the scheme (and say yes they want people always to work a full week instead of part time) then they could be shedding about 50% of their workers? who will then be competing with other lowish skilled UK workers as well as foreign workers looking for basic work?

Somehow it seems to conflict with government's "employment" figures being a top priority - so in reality it seems more like a ruse just to pretend that they're being tough on claimants?

Lump of labour fallacy

[crash2006]

It's not actually a cut to benefits is it.

you need to read,there have been increases and not cuts in the corporate welfare system, i never said anything about social welfare system.

I wonder what cuts have they made to corporate welfare system.

[Si1]

you need to read,there have been increases and not cuts in the corporate welfare system, i never said anything about social welfare system.

I wonder what cuts have they made to corporate welfare system.

Fair point

Do you mean, by corporate welfare, banksters support etc?

[billybong]

Lump of labour fallacy

According to the guardian there are 903,440 working people on housing benefit - and apparently the numbers are rapidly growing.

http://

www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/22/working-people-housing-benefit-report

The number of working households forced to rely on housing benefit since the recession began in 2008 has doubled – a trend that will lead to a million earners being dependent on welfare to keep a roof over their heads by the next election, according to a report.

The Home Truths study by the National Housing Federation found that in May 2012 there were 903,440 working recipients of housing benefits – more than double the figure for November 2008 and a jump that signifies an alarming rise in in-work poverty.

http://

www.itv.com/news/story/2013-12-10/working-people-claiming-housing-on-the-rise/

Not all of the 903,440 will be part timers on housing benefit. Say 50%? or 500,000 and only a fraction of those will be at risk of being docked benefit.

It seems more of an electioneering ruse than a significant money saver - especially in comparison to the corporate bail outs. Indeed some of the newly unemployed might get new work but it's not that obvious in bureaucratic Britain where the extra jobs to absorb maybe a couple of hundred thousand spare people (if that's how many are involved) are going to come from and be created in the immediate future.

Edited March 2, 2014 by billybong

[SarahBell]

If it's not just a ruse where are the spare jobs going to come from?

Time for UKIP to point out the number of immigrants doing work in the UK?

[interestrateripoff]

And the effect on those on zero hour contracts will be?

Are they to be penalised more than part time workers?

More importantly where the feck are all of these full time jobs? Will firms be penalised for creating part time work instead of full time jobs?

Yet more mental interference in the economy to make out something is happening.

[billybong]

.

Edited March 2, 2014 by billybong

[b w]

"The number of working households forced to rely on housing benefit since the recession began in 2008 has doubled"

Not sure forced is the right word , you either meet the criteria to get housing benefit or not. As i believe housing benefit disadvantages me personally then i support it being tightened further still.

[crash2006]

Fair point

Do you mean, by corporate welfare, banksters support etc?

corporate welfare = state subsidies nice term they use, welfare payments to companies as such as financing the nuclear power stations for private companies, wind farms, tax money going to train companies etc... they cut social welfare but have increased corporate welfare.

the new pan us/euro trade laws will make corporations even stronger and weaken the state, until corporations run countries.

Edited March 2, 2014 by crash2006

[crash2006]

"The number of working households forced to rely on housing benefit since the recession began in 2008 has doubled"

Not sure forced is the right word , you either meet the criteria to get housing benefit or not. As i believe housing benefit disadvantages me personally then i support it being tightened further still.

Its does not, just more people are falling into the gap, if you didnt have HB you'll have more families living in a studio, rental prices will not drop, its been over a year now since the HB caps and rents are still rising.

The argument does not hold,that lower HB will reduce rents, just another trick by those that run the country to divert money from social welfare into corporate welfare, using the HB argument to cut social welfare and gain approval.

Edited March 2, 2014 by crash2006

[Dweller]

According to the guardian there are 903,440 working people on housing benefit - and apparently the numbers are rapidly growing.

Not all of the 903,440 will be part timers on housing benefit. Say 50%? or 500,000 and only a fraction of those will be at risk of being docked benefit.

It seems more of an electioneering ruse than a significant money saver - especially in comparison to the corporate bail outs. Indeed some of the newly unemployed might get new work but it's not that obvious in bureaucratic Britain where the extra jobs to absorb maybe a couple of hundred thousand spare people (if that's how many are involved) are going to come from and be created in the immediate future.

But this is not counting the Two Cities the Size of Leeds needed to house influx of new migrants

A study of figures has found that during the next ten years, migrants will be responsible for 629,000 new households and the need for 629,000 more full time jobs, and is that households or house owners )

[b w]

Its does not, just more people are falling into the gap, if you didnt have HB you'll have more families living in a studio, rental prices will not drop, its been over a year now since the HB caps and rents are still rising.

The argument does not hold,that lower HB will reduce rents, just another trick by those that run the country to divert money from social welfare into corporate welfare, using the HB argument to cut social welfare and gain approval.

Yes because the benefit caps are so draconian, im sure i dont know how i would cope if my salary was up to 26k after tax.

Housing benefit is already a corporate benefit, allowing companies to pay piss poor wages as housing cost being met by the taxpayer.

If you scrapped housing benefit tomorrow ( ignoring for the sake of argument the consequence of doing so) do you really believe that there would be no knock effect of rents having to drop, bear in mind the removal of billion of pounds of subsidy in that market.

I compete with other renters who do not meet their own housing cost, how is this different to other HPC posters bemoaning HTB allowing people without a decent deposit to compete with them.

[Dweller]

According to the guardian there are 903,440 working people on housing benefit - and apparently the numbers are rapidly growing.

Not all of the 903,440 will be part timers on housing benefit. Say 50%? or 500,000 and only a fraction of those will be at risk of being docked benefit.

It seems more of an electioneering ruse than a significant money saver - especially in comparison to the corporate bail outs. Indeed some of the newly unemployed might get new work but it's not that obvious in bureaucratic Britain where the extra jobs to absorb maybe a couple of hundred thousand spare people (if that's how many are involved) are going to come from and be created in the immediate future.

Quotes from your links, I just get more and more confused!

The number of working households forced to rely on housing benefit since the recession began in 2008 has doubled – a trend that will lead to a million earners being dependent on welfare to keep a roof over their heads by the next election, according to a report.

The Home Truths study by the National Housing Federation found that in May 2012 there were 903,440 working recipients of housing benefits – more than double the figure for November 2008 and a jump that signifies an alarming rise in in-work poverty.

So what does this say about house prices /rents and wages?

Contd Quote:

As private rents rise faster than wages, another 10,000 working people a month need housing benefit to afford their rent. By the next election, the study warns, 1.2 million "strivers" will only be able to stay in their homes through welfare payments.

And how many will have only bought their home with government backed deposits and support for lending? So what does this say about house prices /rents?

The federation's analysis is that housing is becoming (!!! ?) unaffordable as supply is outpaced by demand. The number of households in Britain is growing three times as fast as the number of homes being built.

But new builds are extortionately expensive (unaffordable) surely not only because of supply? And even "affordable housing" remains unaffordable for most.

In England by 2018 the average weekly rent will be £245, up from today's £181, a leap of 35%, the study says. The lingering recession means house prices will fall next year but then rise sharply. By 2018 homes in England will cost on average £292,060, almost £60,000 more than today.

But who will be able to afford to buy them let alone rent them?

The result is that increasingly even those in work will not be able to afford to live in a home without benefits.

OR we could have affordable housing couldn't we?

So who is at fault here, the people who are working but can't afford the rent (let alone to buy)?

OR the government who will not allow the housing market to deflate its bubble back to a natural afford-ability spectrum?

The number of employed people claiming housing benefit in England has risen by 104% since 2009, with a further 310 added every day, at a total cost to the taxpayer of more than £12 billion over the period - or £1.7 million a day - said the National Housing Federation.

Where would the market be now IF house prices has not been allowed to increase as they did from 1999 to 2007?

Where would the market be now IF the government had allowed the bubble to deflate in 2008?

Is this simply about a failure to provide homes or as much about a failure to allow property prices to find their afford-ability spectrum after 2008 rather than artificially keep ramping and INFLATING the market UP ?

Where does this end?

[Si1]

The national housing federation

Ooooh nice VIs 'give is some more govt money'

[wonderpup]

Won't this create disincentive for an unemployed person to take a part time job- if they run the risk of being evicted?

The more punitive they make the system the more risk averse the people dependent on it will become- which creates more dependency- not less.

Which the opposite of the intended effect.

But It will make a nice headline- for a day.

[winkie]

Rents are linked to wages, real wages are falling so rents will be falling. I can't see tax payers paying extra to keep rents high.....it is not in working peoples interest to have high rents, it is not in peoples interest to be dependant on different forms of state subsidy......

[Ulfar]

Never mind those working part-time claiming housing benefit, how about those working part-time claiming tax credits which is also to be included within Universal Credit.

This is also if Universal Credit is ever fixed, which is a big if.

[Si1]

Rents are linked to wages, real wages are falling so rents will be falling. I can't see tax payers paying extra to keep rents high.....it is not in working peoples interest to have high rents, it is not in peoples interest to be dependant on different forms of state subsidy......

It's historically always been the case that Labour govts have deliberately made people dependent on the state in order to increase the govts power over people's lives

[@contradevian]

Never mind those working part-time claiming housing benefit, how about those working part-time claiming tax credits which is also to be included within Universal Credit.

This is also if Universal Credit is ever fixed, which is a big if.

Suggests to me they will sanction housing benefit, even if UC isn't fixed. Quite how local HB teams would cope with the extra case load is another matter!

[fluffy666]

It's historically always been the case that Labour govts have deliberately made people dependent on the state in order to increase the govts power over people's lives

Is it?

In that case it's always been true that Conservative governments have deliberately engineered recessions in order to reduce the working classes to penury and increase the power of landowners and the already rich.