Housing Benefit capped at £400 a week!

ashleygunn

Sadly, where I live, there are people who cannot be bothered to work who breed like rabbits because it means that a) they get more child benefit/tax credits and b) they can get a bigger house that's paid for by those who do work.

I know these people get too much in benefits because they always seem to be smoking and drinking it all away.

I was made redundant last year, and I was out of a job for six weeks. During that time I couldn't believe how much money was being thrown at me. We were getting tax credits galore. And if I was renting then we'd have got even more cash. It's sickening.

puddy

yes, even if she looks to watford, which is within a 3 mile radius, the rents are lower, but how many of them take hb and she presumably needs to be within the catchment area for her childs school??

Bullfighter

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I doubt i could give a single sentence answer.

I'll just say I am probably right of Genghis Khan in my views but even allowing for this,there will always be a limited need for HB (not further quantified) unless we are happy for the poorest to be homeless. What we must not do is perpetuate a dependency culture in which people are provided with super new housing asscn properties which are fully funded by the taxpayer.

I repeat again,i think the max £400 pw is too high but also that there should be regional maxima to take into account population densities and supply of accommodation such that for example, and as we might expect, rents in London would be more expensive.

HB is not and should not be a means by which those who are not economically active, can procure and have use of a property of equivalent value/facility than someone who works and pays a mortgage.

I am all in favour of the return to council estates for those who need to claim HB. In effect,in my world, HB would not be payable to non social landlords.

Again, if an area is unable to supply adequate sized properties for <£1,000pcm, then what is the problem with offering LHA property in another area??

Muhasib

Is LHA payable from Central government or local authorities?

Jowo_2

jenner wrote: »

why blame children for the 'crimes' of the parent not working by ensuring that they have a lower standard of accommodation because we dont want to see them growing up in 'average' accommodation because their parents dont work?

I share your ambivalence and concerns, too.

Critics say that the problem with the child centric policies of Labour is that it has created a situation where some households view their children as their financial security.

Also, that by focussing on poor innocent children it means there's less attention given to adult dysfunction (i.e. provide breakfast clubs rather than get the adult to get out of bed and give their kids some toast in the morning...).

That if benefits/allowances are too close to low paid work, there's no incentive to take up employment because all it means is the adult feels that they lose 40 hours per week of leisure time for no extra income, etc.

Jowo_2

muhasib wrote: »

Is LHA payable from Central government or local authorities?

Well the local council administers it but surely it's got to come from central government funds in the first place?

I mean, part of the problem is that in recent years more has been paid out in benefits than is getting collected in income tax receipts so the welfare model has been out of kilter and unsustainable.

i just don't see any great attention given to the underlying causes of the shocking LHA bill - lack of affordable rents and decent job opportunities.

puddy

Jowo wrote: »

I share your ambivalence and concerns, too.

Critics say that the problem with the child centric policies of Labour is that it has created a situation where some households view their children as their financial security.

Also, that by focussing on poor innocent children it means there's less attention given to adult dysfunction (i.e. provide breakfast clubs rather than get the adult to get out of bed and give their kids some toast in the morning...).

That if benefits/allowances are too close to low paid work, there's no incentive to take up employment because all it means is the adult feels that they lose 40 hours per week of leisure time for no extra income, etc.

yes, i agree with all those points, i dont know what the answer is though, as my work involves working with neglected and badly parented children and so i see the end product of parents who despite what policies were in place would still have anti social and irresponsible attitudes

C_Mababejive

Bullfighter wrote: »

Again, if an area is unable to supply adequate sized properties for <£1,000pcm, then what is the problem with offering LHA property in another area??

Fine by me. your pushing at an open door..!

I think there is a certain element of private LLs creating an artificial market with inflated prices to meet demand.

silvercar

According to the rules, two children of the opposite sex shouldn't share a room once the eldest reaches 11; I accept that. What I find difficult to understand is why, once a child reaches 16 they need a room of their own What is wrong with a 16 year old boy sharing a room with his 14 year old brother?

A family of 5: mum, dad, 16 year old, 14 year old boy and 12 year old girl would be entitled to a 4 bed house. Anyone paying their own rent from earned income would probably not be able to move from a 3 bed to a 4 bed, just because their eldest hits 16.

silvercar

At the moment LHA pays the median rental ( ie put the rents in order and take the middle value: 50% above and 50% below). This is to drop to the 30th percentile (which means, ranking rents in order and taking the value above 30% of them and therefore below 70%).

In an area where there are not many LHA claimants it won't make much difference, the LHA rent will been that recipients are in the lower rented properties.

In an area where there are a lot of claimants it will have a significant effect. If say half the rental properties were tenanted by people in receipt of LHA then suddenly half those renting can't afford the average rent. This pushes rents downwards. But then the 30th percentile gets pushed downwards and the cycle continues of ever decreasing rents.