750,000 to lose homes in South East?

PasturesNew

Just tried to do it, I'd get £67/week (WTC £25, £42 LHA).

I just looked at that ... and it'd amount to £1023 in my hand, which is the same as earning £15k.

Blimey.... so, all I'd need to do is earn £10k/year where I live - and the giveaways would make it up to the same as £15k takehome. As there aren't any £15k jobs in my area, that's just nuts.

Savings over £6k reduce those figures though.

Having just had a big dip in income, followed by more business costs (including needing to hire a couple of techies this weekend to get my site working again) ... that kind of sucks.

I've no idea how much I've earnt until I do a tax return. When you're self-employed you can't tell. You know what you've earnt and spent today, but no idea what will occur tomorrow ... it could be a big fat £0 tomorrow. You just never know. So you can't possibly put in your 2010/2011 earnings until the year's gone.

arby

millym wrote: »

I do think it's wrong to target the poorest families in this way, who are already really struggling. Not sure how local councils will cope either, as I'm assuming the number of people presenting as homeless can only increase. OK, rant over lol!

You think people on housing benefits are struggling? How do you think low earners not on housing benefit are doing? You know, the ones who actually have to meet their own needs? LOTS of people are struggling right now, why should one group, who already receive a lot of help, be sheltered from that entirely?

nickj_2

is there another time bomb waiting to unleash itself in years to come when all the people who couldn't afford to buy and had to rent reach retiring age and are unable to afford the rent .
where will all these people live ?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, so lets get this straight.

People are going to have to up sticks throughout a whole area and move to another area.

Forgive me, but I don't see a mass of rentals available in the area they are going to move to.

Neither do I see a mass of people not getting HB lining up to start renting in the areas all the HB claimants have upped sticks from.

Landlords will have to reduce rents. It really is as simple as that. It was only a matter of time before the gravy train ran out considering the housing market.

for crying out loud, it's not that hard to understand

that's exactly the point being made.... re-read the bl00dy post instead of frothing away

Malcolm.

PasturesNew wrote: »

Just tried to do it, I'd get £67/week (WTC £25, £42 LHA).

I just looked at that ... and it'd amount to £1023 in my hand, which is the same as earning £15k.

Blimey.... so, all I'd need to do is earn £10k/year where I live - and the giveaways would make it up to the same as £15k takehome. As there aren't any £15k jobs in my area, that's just nuts.

Savings over £6k reduce those figures though.

Means testing against savings decreases prudence. PN had you racked up huge debts on credit cards you'd have full entitlement. Probably have the CC debts written off by the banks too. It's ridiculous.

IMHO the govenment needs get a grip on moral hazard. The system should encourage 'good' behaviour.

chucky

nickj wrote: »

is there another time bomb waiting to unleash itself in years to come when all the people who couldn't afford to buy and had to rent reach retiring age and are unable to afford the rent .

yes............... but it's not now though - they're currently the minority.
once the owner occupier numbers decrease there will an issue to address.

they were 70% (ish) in 2005 they're 67%-69% now depending on what your source is

Running_Horse

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's those in low-paid,part-time and shift-work jobs that will find things hardest. They'll most likely lose them if they can't find accomodation for thier families relatively near their workplaces or public transport that fit's in with working those shifts, or even worth it, once travelling expenses are taken into account, for that 4-6 hour per day cleaning/retail job ( for example )..

Populations have always tended to move 'where the work is'.. this is going to reverse that for a lot of workers.

You don't know much about shift work. I took it for the shift premium and time at home with my family. I got a cheap motorbike to get to work, then moved to within cyclying distance. Which is preferable? People moving where the work is, or where the benefits are highest?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

for crying out loud, it's not that hard to understand

that's exactly the point being made.... re-read the bl00dy post instead of frothing away

I said "let me get this straight" tounge in cheek.

What I don't understand, is why those with a vested interest in this will think up absolutely anything, even those kind of ludicrous suggestions, but won't even mention the word "reduce rent".

People are not going to be moving en masse to different areas and be graced with loads of empty homes to move into, and landlords won't suddenly be graced with a load of new renters on their doorsteps falling like angels from above, and they live happily ever after.

A shift in the rental values is all that it takes.

Shakethedisease

You don't know much about shift work.

*snorts*

Come back to me with that when you know a bit more about me.

Which is preferable? People moving where the work is, or where the benefits are highest?

Catch 22. Benefits are higher where the work is, because more people want to live there, hence more expensive ? So it's both.

IMHO the govenment needs get a grip on moral hazard. The system should encourage 'good' behaviour.

Yes, lets start with the banks.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A shift in the rental values is all that it takes.

Well gosh Graham, if it's so easy I wonder why everyone doesn't just take that approach?

£150bn annual deficit? No problem!!!

A 10% rise in tax revenue is all that it takes.

Company failing? No problem!!!!

A 30% reduction in the employees wage packet is all that it takes.

Pension crisis? No problem!!!

A 300% rise in National Insurance contributions is all that it takes.