We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Changes to Housing benefit how much will rents fall?
Comments
-
Silverbull wrote: »Exactly Chucky seems to think it will never run out.
here is a classic example of 2 posters whose basic comprehension and reading ability is 1 out of 10...Graham_Devon wrote: »The grant is £20m.
That won't go very far.
£20million this year and then rise to £50million
read and understand this - you'll get your answersSilverbull wrote: »So what is your answer? You still think there will not be a need for those on low incomes to move out of London? Also do you still think rents will not fall when the cuts come in?
it's going to be a lot of money in the real world... let's do the math...£20 million quid.
Do you really think that's going to make much of an impact on London rents/house prices, chucky?
It's not much, is it?
£20 million between 15,000 households is £1,333 a year and is £111 a month...
£111 a month will be fine if the average rent reduces by only £88 a month...The way I looked at those posts:
22pw off the average rent, I would guess that's between 5 and 10 percent depending on area, possibly a bit more in the bronx, I would classify that as
However, an extra £88+ a month on expenses DOES reduce discretionary spend significantly.
See, I thought about it, rather than going out of my way to look like an utter dipstick.0 -
The grant will be used in exceptional circumstances. How that will be deemed, I have no idea, but I'm guessing it will be on the same sort of basis that it's decided at the moment where more than the average LHA is paid to house a family.
But if a house currently costs £3,000 a month to rent, the shortfall will be £1400.
Therefore one family could quite easily use up 17k of that money themselves in one single year.
When the grant moves up to 50m a year, LHA will have reduced further. So the size of the grant being larger, may not make that huge a difference. Just the same people getting more from the grants.
I have no idea why chucky keeps copying and pasting the same thing, as if it's some kind of answer to any question he's been asked.0 -
contradict yourself in one sentence - you don't know but you're guessing...Graham_Devon wrote: »The grant will be used in exceptional circumstances. How that will be deemed, I have no idea, but I'm guessing.
but hold on, i'll just prove yo don't have the remotest clue what you're talking about...
can you provide the numbers to tell us how many of these properties there will be - bet you can't and you're making things up again...
tick, tick come on Devon let's see some facts and figures instead of your Daily Mail style posts... come on tick tick...Graham_Devon wrote: »But if a house currently costs £3,000 a month to rent, the shortfall will be £1400.
Therefore one family could quite easily use up 17k of that money themselves in one single year.0 -
That's not a contradiction.contradict yourself in one sentence - you don't know but you're guessing...
The government's and Mayor's plan for London hasn't truly been worked out in finite detail.but hold on, i'll just prove yo don't have the remotest clue what you're talking about...
can you provide the numbers to tell us how many of these properties there will be - bet you can't and you're making things up again...
The plans were revealed at a Party Conference not at a spending review therefore even the DWP, local councils, London Assembly and the Mayor of London can't provide numbers at the moment as the plan hasn't been worked out.
Attacking a poster when you can't make arguments or points yourself makes you look dumb.tick, tick come on Devon let's see some facts and figures instead of your Daily Mail style posts... come on tick tick...I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
fine and it does come in to place it will mean that all the nonsense posts about people moving out of London and it being a ghost town and rents crashing won't happen... even without this it won't happen..The government's and Mayor's plan for London hasn't truly been worked out in finite detail.
here's the thing Olly, this poster continually comes up with nonsense - he comes up with stuff like 10% YoY HPI is a stagnant market or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer works in the Financial Markets. he even insists it's 100% correct and turns around and claims he never says things...Attacking a poster when you can't make arguments or points yourself makes you look dumb.
he now comes up with the nonsense below as if it was the norm - it's the extreme and not normal and very far from the truth.
hence the Daily Mail comment and their unrealistic reporting.
btw who died and left you in charge - i can post what i likeGraham_Devon wrote: »But if a house currently costs £3,000 a month to rent, the shortfall will be £1400.
Therefore one family could quite easily use up 17k of that money themselves in one single year.
0 -
btw who died and left you in charge - i can post what i like
Off course you can but with posters you think are stupid it often works better if you let different posters "debate" with them.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
unless there are more jobs created outside London and the South East there won't be a massive impact - there will be an impact but not what you're predicting....
have a think about this...
London and the South East covers 8% of the UK but it has 16% of the population. there's a reason for that - employment and job opportunities. population density is 165% more than the rest of the UK.
until there are jobs outside of this area - there won't be a huge impact.
only 2006 i know still looking for more up to date data
Amended June 19 2006 - The rate of unemployment in London is 7.6% (January to March) according to the Labour Force Survey. This is almost 1 percentage point higher than the next region, the North East of England which has a rate of 6.7% for the same period. The UK national average for January-March is 5.2%. London's total of 301,000 unemployed is more than the totals for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland combined, more than the entire English Midlands and more than the North West and North East of England combined.
this isnt including the homeless which is obviously hight in the south0 -
careinthecommunity wrote: »only 2006 i know still looking for more up to date data
Amended June 19 2006 - The rate of unemployment in London is 7.6% (January to March) according to the Labour Force Survey. This is almost 1 percentage point higher than the next region, the North East of England which has a rate of 6.7% for the same period. The UK national average for January-March is 5.2%. London's total of 301,000 unemployed is more than the totals for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland combined, more than the entire English Midlands and more than the North West and North East of England combined.
this isnt including the homeless which is obviously hight in the south
I found different figures from you -
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1606In the 12 months ending December 2009, the highest unemployment rate in Great Britain was in Blaenau Gwent in Wales at 14.8 per cent, followed by the City of Kingston upon Hull at 14.5 per cent and Sandwell in the West Midlands, at 14.2 per cent.
The two areas with the lowest unemployment rates in Great Britain were found in Scotland. The lowest was in the Orkney Islands at 2.4 per cent, followed by the Shetland Islands at 2.8 per cent. Eden in Cumbria also had a rate or 2.8 per cent.
Differences in unemployment rates in local areas within regions are generally greater than differences between regions. In the 12 months ending December 2009, the region with the greatest contrast between local authorities was Yorkshire and The Humber with 10.7 percentage points between the City of Kingston upon Hull at 14.5 per cent and Ryedale at 3.8 per cent.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
I found different figures from you -
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1606
thank you, 2 years newer than mine, i am still looking for something relevant as i am interested in chucky's stats
my point is that unemployment in london in percentages is quite high considering the 8% / 16% stats
from your article
At regional level, there were just 3.7 percentage points between the lowest unemployment rate (5.9 per cent), for the South East, and the highest unemployment rate (9.6 per cent), for the North East.
can you tell me does this include the fact of the population density in london, as i dont think it does.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards