Benefit wasters paid to move to expensive areas to lower rents/houseprices

Silverbull

It seems con/libs are determined to lower rents/house prices in expensive areas.

First we are told housing benefit will be capped. So everyone thinks all the benefit claimants will have to move out of expensive areas OR the average rents will have to come down a long way.
Now we are told they will give cash incentives for the benefit wasters to move to these expensive areas.

This is not good news for house owners or landlords in that area. All the nice schools in that area will start having an influx of more kids getting tax payers to pay for their uniforms/schoolmeals.

Isnt it going to just make the poor areas even poorer just becoming slums?

Then the expensive areas will be filling with all these benefit claimants. With the capping of housing benefit, this is going to lower the rents and with lower rents come lower house prices of these expensive areas?

Raggs_2

You see I read they would be helped to move to areas where there are more jobs, in order for them to get employed. Not quite the same thing.

thorsoak

But don't forget ....today's slums can then become tomorrow's "hot spot" .....I'm thinking particularly of London docklands ........an opportunity for budding entrepreneurs

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Are you smoking crack?

The only thing that has been suggested is that people stuck in council estates, etc, where there is no work, should be offered incentives to move to where there is work. As they are not planning to build any more houses in the areas with more work, then this is likely a bit of a non-starter. In case you hadn't noticed, the places with work tend to be far fuller than places without. Hence the higher prices to begin with.

Making the frankly insane assumption that this then means "Benefit wasters paid to move to expensive areas to lower rents/houseprices" is beyond an exagerration, it's just an outright lie.

Silverbull

Raggs wrote: »

You see I read they would be helped to move to areas where there are more jobs, in order for them to get employed. Not quite the same thing.

When you say benefit wasters it doesnt only mean those on JSA. Most of these families arent on JSA but instead working tax credit.

The difference of money they get between JSA and WTC is very little. Just because they are officially not unemployed doesnt mean they are not benefit wasters.

Most of these waters with kids say they are self employed but making a loss with their ebay business. Thats because they are buying all the latest DVDs and video games and selling them when they want newer ones.


The point is these benefit waters being paid to move to expensive areas is not good for that area.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Silverbull wrote: »

The point is these benefit waters being paid to move to expensive areas is not good for that area.

No, the point is that you are mindlessly trolling.

Even assuming that these "benefits wasters" moved from say, Liverpool to London looking for work, they're not going to be moving into Kensington and Chelsea to "lower house prices". They won't be moving in beside David Cameron in Notting Hill.

They'll be moving into the cheap and nasty areas, like everyone else on low income.

Thermidor

Silverbull,

You sound extremely confused.

Are you seriously suggesting that landlords will rent out their properties according to how much the government tell them to? Most landlords rent their properties to people in employment and who can afford their rents. They're not going to lower them to accommodate the unemployed! You're deluded.

chucky

Silverbull wrote: »

It seems con/libs are determined to lower rents/house prices in expensive areas.

yep ok then

btw - a bit off topic i know but do you know where i can buy silver bullion?

JonnyBravo

chucky wrote: »

btw - a bit off topic i know but do you know where i can buy silver bullion?

:rotfl:
:rotfl:
I've a feeling he might...... he might even know of a few youtube videos from [STRIKE]loons[/STRIKE] informed commentators for you to get fully up to speed about the price fixing going on

ruggedtoast

Silverbull wrote: »

It seems con/libs are determined to lower rents/house prices in expensive areas.

First we are told housing benefit will be capped. So everyone thinks all the benefit claimants will have to move out of expensive areas OR the average rents will have to come down a long way.
Now we are told they will give cash incentives for the benefit wasters to move to these expensive areas.

This is not good news for house owners or landlords in that area. All the nice schools in that area will start having an influx of more kids getting tax payers to pay for their uniforms/schoolmeals.

Isnt it going to just make the poor areas even poorer just becoming slums?

Then the expensive areas will be filling with all these benefit claimants. With the capping of housing benefit, this is going to lower the rents and with lower rents come lower house prices of these expensive areas?

The housing benefit cap isnt going to affect many people on housing benefit. Its largely a sop to the Daily Mailers, angry about the Somalian single mother of 7 living in a Highbury penthouse. Is it even going to be applied retrospectively; doubt it.

Unfortunately I think anyone of a bearish disposition is going to be quite disappointed if they expect the Tories to stop the flow of public money going to private property investors.

The flow will undoubtedly be less, and they will have fewer channels to direct it but there will be no change in policy.

I think it would do some people a lot of good just to accept this and move on with their lives.

chucky

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think it would do some people a lot of good just to accept this and move on with their lives.

contrary to RT - i think you should believe, be proud and continue that never say die attitude

my day at work will be slower without threads like these