Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Housing money wasted 'propping up rents'

Recommended Posts

I honestly think they should stop paying housing benefit. You have to use your tax credits and JSA to pay your rent.

if your tax credits or JSA will not cover the rent go find somewhere cheaper to rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit as currently implemented is effectively a subsidy to landlords in 'expensive' areas, to prop rents up with public money.  ie. Housing benefit will pay whatever rent the landlords are demanding in that area.

If the state's willingness to pay 'the market rate' was taken away, I'm pretty sure that the actual 'the market rate' would fall.  That would benefit private renters and the state alike.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Housing benefit as currently implemented is effectively a subsidy to landlords in 'expensive' areas, to prop rents up with public money.  ie. Housing benefit will pay whatever rent the landlords are demanding in that area.

If the state's willingness to pay 'the market rate' was taken away, I'm pretty sure that the actual 'the market rate' would fall.  That would benefit private renters and the state alike.

 

It would benefit most private renters but those who rely on housing benefit would have to move to cheaper areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

It would benefit most private renters but those who rely on housing benefit would have to move to cheaper areas.

People who actually earn their money and rent,  have to live in an area where they can afford to pay the rent so I don't see why people who are on welfare have a 'right' to live in a super-expensive area with the public purse footing the bill.  There should be an overall payment (including a component to represent housing benefit) and they can decide if they want to rent somewhere expensive and have less disposable 'income' or move somewhere cheaper and have more disposable.  Like any working person.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sour Mash said:

People who actually earn their money and rent,  have to live in an area where they can afford to pay the rent so I don't see why people who are on welfare have a 'right' to live in a super-expensive area with the public purse footing the bill.  There should be an overall payment (including a component to represent housing benefit) and they can decide if they want to rent somewhere expensive and have less disposable 'income' or move somewhere cheaper and have more disposable.  Like any working person.

 

I agree 100% sadly it is quite a controversial view with my circle of friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to get away from the idea of the Welfare State 'providing' stuff to the jobless.

If you have actual special needs - sickness, disablity etc - then fine, let the state handle it and provide support.  Otherwise it should just pay an 'income' to those depending on financial support and it's up to the recipients to sort themselves out using what they get.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

People who actually earn their money and rent,  have to live in an area where they can afford to pay the rent so I don't see why people who are on welfare have a 'right' to live in a super-expensive area with the public purse footing the bill.  There should be an overall payment (including a component to represent housing benefit) and they can decide if they want to rent somewhere expensive and have less disposable 'income' or move somewhere cheaper and have more disposable.  Like any working person.

 

There is no 'right' as such and I agree with you on principle, but the human cost to those affected can be immense. Something strange happens when you need to rely on the state for anything and that is you tend to be left in a worse position (not just counting monetary entitlement) then your equivalent in the private sector and those with at least a little cushion of wealth. So in theory your proposal would work out better in the long-term, but in reality all things are not equal. 'Moving to somewhere cheaper' would translate into having to give up a job, school place etc. to move to a deprived area. Do you have enough faith in the government that those affected wouldn't be completely shafted?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeremy424 said:

There is no 'right' as such and I agree with you on principle, but the human cost to those affected can be immense. Something strange happens when you need to rely on the state for anything and that is you tend to be left in a worse position (not just counting monetary entitlement) then your equivalent in the private sector and those with at least a little cushion of wealth. So in theory your proposal would work out better in the long-term, but in reality all things are not equal. 'Moving to somewhere cheaper' would translate into having to give up a job, school place etc. to move to a deprived area. Do you have enough faith in the government that those affected wouldn't be completely shafted?  

What about the human cost to those who can't afford to live in area x because the jobless are given houses there and spend less time with their families as a result?  Many years ago I read this comment on a BBC article about journeys to work (I can't remember the exact words)

Quote

I have to travel for 50 minutes to work because I can't afford to live closer - the council does give single mums houses near my work though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

We need to get away from the idea of the Welfare State 'providing' stuff to the jobless.

If you have actual special needs - sickness, disablity etc - then fine, let the state handle it and provide support.  Otherwise it should just pay an 'income' to those depending on financial support and it's up to the recipients to sort themselves out using what they get.

 

 

 

I agree 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

People who actually earn their money and rent,  have to live in an area where they can afford to pay the rent so I don't see why people who are on welfare have a 'right' to live in a super-expensive area with the public purse footing the bill.  There should be an overall payment (including a component to represent housing benefit) and they can decide if they want to rent somewhere expensive and have less disposable 'income' or move somewhere cheaper and have more disposable.  Like any working person.

 

yes but some groups are privileged...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RomfordDon said:

I honestly think they should stop paying housing benefit. You have to use your tax credits and JSA to pay your rent.

if your tax credits or JSA will not cover the rent go find somewhere cheaper to rent.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But at the end of the article Shelter conclude that the freeze on housing benefit needs to end so presumably they are in favour of wasting tax payers money and propping up rents..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sour Mash said:

If the state's willingness to pay 'the market rate' was taken away, I'm pretty sure that the actual 'the market rate' would fall. 

Im sure it would - probably to tune of  $250 - £300 a month for the average rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jeremy424 said:

There is no 'right' as such and I agree with you on principle, but the human cost to those affected can be immense. Something strange happens when you need to rely on the state for anything and that is you tend to be left in a worse position (not just counting monetary entitlement) then your equivalent in the private sector and those with at least a little cushion of wealth. So in theory your proposal would work out better in the long-term, but in reality all things are not equal. 'Moving to somewhere cheaper' would translate into having to give up a job, school place etc. to move to a deprived area. Do you have enough faith in the government that those affected wouldn't be completely shafted?  

Maybe. But it wouldn't change the number of houses, all you'd get are different people living in them, so where's the fundamental problem?

As for long journeys to work, that's really a separate issue, although some of its symptoms spread here. The curse of centralisation, so that many places no longer have much work nearby. It leaves the deprived areas deprived, with the only alternative to be bulldozed and replaced by wealthy dormitories, nothing in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You what?

So a MP trougher is suggesting that a reduction in housing benifit would be better for the country and the head of a homeless charity wants to plough more public money in pushing rents and house prices higher

Quote

Polly Neate, chief executive of housing and homelessness charity Shelter, said

but in the meantime we must maintain housing benefit to give desperate families the help they need.

"With party conference season upon us, we're calling on politicians across all the major parties to commit to ending the freeze on housing benefit which is pushing thousands of families to the brink of homelessness."

So a MP trougher is suggesting that a reduction in housing benifit would be better for the country and the head of a homeless charity wants to plough more public money in pushing rents and house prices higher

Edited by Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Wayward said:

But at the end of the article Shelter conclude that the freeze on housing benefit needs to end so presumably they are in favour of wasting tax payers money and propping up rents..?

Shelter seem to be prepared to go to almost any lengths to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion that cheaper housing is better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Shelter seem to be prepared to go to almost any lengths to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion that cheaper housing is better.

 

Shelter property owning elite....have a look at their accounts, go on, I dare you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Shelter seem to be prepared to go to almost any lengths to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion that cheaper housing is better.

 

I've asked the on twitter if they support Housing benefit rises and if their execs own any BTLs...lets see what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only recently I had an email from 38 degrees, who do petitions about all sorts, asking me to support one that asked for housing benefit to be INCREASED, to avoid hardship for tenants.  

The number of people who can't see the roots of the housing problem is astonishing.  

Still, good to see this on the Beeb!  Need it plastered over the  Daily Wail, Express, Telegraph, etc. next, not to mention the Evening Standard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrs Bear said:

Only recently I had an email from 38 degrees, who do petitions about all sorts, asking me to support one that asked for housing benefit to be INCREASED, to avoid hardship for tenants.  

The number of people who can't see the roots of the housing problem is astonishing.  

Still, good to see this on the Beeb!  Need it plastered over the  Daily Wail, Express, Telegraph, etc. next, not to mention the Evening Standard. 

I suspect we may see this drip, drip, drip into the papers over the next couple of months ready for an announcement in the budget..

Well as tax payers we can live, hope and dream...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 297 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.