Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
durhamborn

25% Of Housing Benefit Bill Goes To London!

Recommended Posts

The DWP have published their latest benefit expenditure tables,

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-2014

The Housing Benefit/Council Tax benefit one is worth reading.

London gets nearly 4 TIMES more in housing benefit than Scotland.They both have similar populations.

London gets 4 TIMES the amount as the rest OF ENGLAND,SCOTLAND and WALES PUT TOGETHER on temporary accommodation.

The housing benefit bill has gone up around £2.7 billion in real terms since this government started.

So more evidence of the regions being sucked dry from tax to hand to London landlords.

The ironic thing is southerners think its northerners who are getting all the benefits.The facts are its Southern/London landlords who are.

Surely no members of government or their mates gain from this do they?.Its just it seems to be the only area of welfare not being cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some way to go to reach this level of capital piggery then. Still, it will benefit the tourists and they will be well up the pecking order over the rest of the country..

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/arts-council-england-admits-funding-6261997

Arts Council England chairman Sir Peter Bazalgette said more focus had to be given to the regions after a damning report was produced suggesting that more than 80% of funding goes to London, home to 15% of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit 25% of total (and that excludes the SE)

Arts spending 80% of national total

Whitehall

Westminster

Transport spending per head 24x amount spent per person in north east http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

95% of capex

City special treatment

Banks implied subsidy and bailouts

Docklands special treatment spread over decades

Now funding for Silicon roundabout in preference to other areas of the country

Monetary policy/currency focused on naturally inflationary London (unemployment in the north a 'price worth paying')

Monetary system/taxation system itself that enriches property holders in the centre

etc etc etc

The costs you see in the press do not tell the whole story as they never cover the figures and effects in their entirety.

Scotland you f*cked up - you missed your opportunity.

Massively so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Londoners will say they pay the lions share of the taxes. Not seen the stats, but that is how politicians will defend it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not forgetting that London and the south east have 'the freedom pass' for those entitled - the rest of us poor oiks have poor public or non-existant transport even if we get the pensioners/disabled perks of a bus pass. :unsure:

I have looked at what a Londoner pays in council tax and what they get as a result (same CT band) and what someone in an empoverished rural area (same CT band) gets for the same amount of taxed income being taken - there is no comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Londoners will say they pay the lions share of the taxes. Not seen the stats, but that is how politicians will defend it,

Would be good to see those stats. I don't think it will be the case that London pays more taxes than the whole rest of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scroungers = London

Well that's just rude. Most Londoners are struggling to deal with house price rises far in excess of wages and rents that suck up a disproportionate amount of take home pay. Housing benefit siphoned off to London is not benefiting Londoners, it's harming them by subsidizing landlords' incomes and corporate wage bills. These latter are the real scroungers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be good to see those stats. I don't think it will be the case that London pays more taxes than the whole rest of the country.

I don't think it really matters either way, tax take doesn't present a justification for housing market props.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit 25% of total (and that excludes the SE)

Arts spending 80% of national total

Whitehall

Westminster

Transport spending per head 24x amount spent per person in north east http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

.

.

.

Scotland you f*cked up - you missed your opportunity.

But hold on! This came up again and again during the referendum campaign:

From: HM Treasury, Scotland Office and The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP

Analysis published by Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander today (Wednesday 28 May) shows every Scottish man, woman and child benefits from a £1,400 UK Dividend as part of the UK.

...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scottish-people-will-be-1400-better-off-as-part-of-the-uk-analysis-show

This led to quite a bit of resentment among the English, and there seems to be a definite movement towards evening things out in retribution for attempting to vote for independence.

Now it turns out that actually London's doing better than everyone else? How can this be? I hardly know who to believe any more...

Edited by Scunnered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Londoners will say they pay the lions share of the taxes. Not seen the stats, but that is how politicians will defend it,

Londoners are claiming less in state pensions than most region's in the UK as there are fewer OAPs living in the Smoke. To be honest that more than covers the difference in Housing Benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an article in this weeks Economist comparing how Labour is struggling in its 'traditional' North compared to London, where it was doing really well.

Hardly suprising as Labour basically imported a load on new voters and put them in subsidised housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Londoners are claiming less in state pensions than most region's in the UK as there are fewer OAPs living in the Smoke. To be honest that more than covers the difference in Housing Benefit.

Really? I know of a few OAPS who sold up big houses in the North to buy small flats in London. Near to the grand kids and all that. But the freedom pass, no need for car, museums and restaurants were a big draw.

As WInkie keeps saying - If you've sorted out your housing cost then London is a very cheap place to live and amuse yourself esp. for OAPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Londoners are claiming less in state pensions than most region's in the UK as there are fewer OAPs living in the Smoke. To be honest that more than covers the difference in Housing Benefit.

So after spending their working life in a subsidized job, living in a subsidized house they sell up and price locals out in Devon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Londoners are claiming less in state pensions than most region's in the UK as there are fewer OAPs living in the Smoke. To be honest that more than covers the difference in Housing Benefit.

That's interesting. From the OP's link (Benefit expenditure by region 1996/97 to 2013/14): state pension expenditure in 2013/14 for Great Britain as a whole is £83,110m, with London receiving £6,614m or just under 8% of the total. This makes me wonder what the general demographic breakdowns are for London versus the regions? Perhaps the underlying trend documented in the housing benefit figures are simply a reflection that priced out younger generations claim proportionately more housing benefit than older generations who are more likely to have had the opportunity to own outright? Such a revelation would be, all in all, unsurprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an article in this weeks Economist comparing how Labour is struggling in its 'traditional' North compared to London, where it was doing really well.

Hardly suprising as Labour basically imported a load on new voters and put them in subsidised housing.

Depends what you mean by subsidised though. You can't have it both ways.

Market rents where I live are now about the same as social rents for bedsits/studio's and one bedders. Still about a 20% disparity on family housing. This is because since 2005 social housing has had above inflation inflation rent rises ordained (started by the Red Rentiers, and continued of course by the Blue & Yellow lot) however there are signs that in certain segments, in my town BTL has reached saturation point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit 25% of total (and that excludes the SE)

Arts spending 80% of national total

Whitehall

Westminster

Transport spending per head 24x amount spent per person in north east http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

95% of capex

City special treatment

Banks implied subsidy and bailouts

Docklands special treatment spread over decades

Now funding for Silicon roundabout in preference to other areas of the country

Monetary policy/currency focused on naturally inflationary London (unemployment in the north a 'price worth paying')

Monetary system/taxation system itself that enriches property holders in the centre

London 'weighting' i.e. boosting Londoners' pay for doing same jobs

etc etc etc

The costs you see in the press do not tell the whole story as they never cover the figures and effects in their entirety.

Scotland you f*cked up - you missed your opportunity.

My first thoughts to ......delayed the release of theses figures ? nah they wouldnt do that would they

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit 25% of total (and that excludes the SE)

Arts spending 80% of national total

Whitehall

Westminster

Transport spending per head 24x amount spent per person in north east http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

95% of capex

City special treatment

Banks implied subsidy and bailouts

Docklands special treatment spread over decades

Now funding for Silicon roundabout in preference to other areas of the country

Monetary policy/currency focused on naturally inflationary London (unemployment in the north a 'price worth paying')

Monetary system/taxation system itself that enriches property holders in the centre

London 'weighting' i.e. boosting Londoners' pay for doing same jobs

etc etc etc

The costs you see in the press do not tell the whole story as they never cover the figures and effects in their entirety.

Scotland you f*cked up - you missed your opportunity.

but, but, Alan Greenspan, the man who tripled America's indebtedness, said independence would be 'bad for scotland'

How can this be?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what you mean by subsidised though. You can't have it both ways.

Market rents where I live are now about the same as social rents for bedsits/studio's and one bedders. Still about a 20% disparity on family housing. This is because since 2005 social housing has had above inflation inflation rent rises ordained (started by the Red Rentiers, and continued of course by the Blue & Yellow lot) however there are signs that in certain segments, in my town BTL has reached saturation point.

Sorry, that should have read' social' housing.

From memory, you're in the North - Huddersfield?

Due to most HA making most councils look like lean, well oiled machines, the HA properties in my home region (whitby/scabby) no are highre than private rents.

I think most HA property is better quality than private, which can veer towards tatty/cr.p.

But private housing do let you avoid some outright scum who are cropping up in some of the places.

Whitby is getting dross who have been booted out of 'boro, turning up and asking to be housed.

Same for Scabby and Leeds.

There's been an active topic on facebook about why do the LA give priority to 'outsiders' who turn up, pay one month rents then refuse to pay anymore. Why can't the LA favour locals with jobs they ask - rightly IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Londoners will say they pay the lions share of the taxes. Not seen the stats, but that is how politicians will defend it,

Not the ones getting all that HB won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been an active topic on facebook about why do the LA give priority to 'outsiders' who turn up, pay one month rents then refuse to pay anymore. Why can't the LA favour locals with jobs they ask - rightly IMO.

I believe it all changed in 1977 when LA allocation policy was changed to needs based. Social housing was never mean't to be a dumping ground, but the cynic in me suggests that making it a dumping ground made it a far less attractive option.

The housing in the village where I live was decimated by the planners in the early 70's as "unfit." They replaced most of it with two concrete towers. The elderly population who were displaced at first quite liked their 'village in the sky' but after the policy changed to needs based, and starting filling with druggies etc, their reputation never recovered and the elderly population gradually dispersed and moved out (or died off).

It seems in the UK, the population can never be allowed to become too comfortable. Unless they are 'home owners' of course and as 'Democorruptcy' excellently points out, even the middle class home owners (or low hanging fruit) will be hounded into perpetual insecurity, just like social tenants/working class.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I know of a few OAPS who sold up big houses in the North to buy small flats in London. Near to the grand kids and all that. But the freedom pass, no need for car, museums and restaurants were a big draw.

As WInkie keeps saying - If you've sorted out your housing cost then London is a very cheap place to live and amuse yourself esp. for OAPs.

Same applies for Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and to a lesser extent Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle

Urban areas have more public facilities, more frequent and cheaper transport, easier access to hospitals etc than rural areas.

That applies in every part of the country including the South east where some villages even in Surrey might only see a bus service running a couple of times a week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland you f*cked up - you missed your opportunity.

Indeed. They'd have been better off with the Scandinavians than the downward spiral of the UK.

The real problem with these stats of course is the insane cost of London housing. If it's not a massive warning to cool the market very quickly (and change the policies) before burning through more taxpayers money, I don't know what is. No doubt they'll just give everyone some more debt to cover it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.