Changes to Housing benefit how much will rents fall?

careinthecommunity

carolt wrote: »

mumsnet?

You haven't read mumsnet, have you.

yes obviously hence the comment ...

carolt wrote: »

Go have a look - you'll find that X factor doesn't feature highly.

i didnt say highly,

low argument carlot, i will call you on this

ash28

chucky wrote: »

yes it will do but it will put increased pressure on the areas that the people are moving to.

unless someone can produce numbers to show those £3,000 a month rentals that Devon was spouting about these are the exceptions not the norm, they're Daily Mail arguments. there are thousands of properties at half of this rent within London.

the market will find it's own level but there won't be a crash in rental values as people seem to be predicting on here.

There are only 100 households claiming more than £1000 a week.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/community/blog/the-real-face-of-housing-benefit/6510697.blog

Not a lot in the scheme of things - but it makes a good story.

One thing that springs to mind in all of this - for me anyway - is that an MP can rent a 1 bed property for £340 per week - it's still housing benefit which ever way you look at it.

A 3 bed property can be rented for £340 per week for Joe Soap on HB

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/claims-processing/local-housing-allowance/impact-of-changes.shtml
(there are tables attached to this that show the losses to the HB various groups)

Shakethedisease

* Elephant in the room moment *

But can anyone tell me why they are reducing LHA, and all the hoo-haa that goes with it... only to pay out millions of tax-payers money in 'grants' to those affected, in order to top up those rents to 'pre-reduction' levels so no-one will have to move ??

What's the point ? I'm lost..completely.

Silverbull

Shakethedisease wrote: »

* Elephant in the room moment *

But can anyone tell me why they are reducing LHA, and all the hoo-haa that goes with it... only to pay out millions of tax-payers money in 'grants' to those affected, in order to top up those rents to 'pre-reduction' levels so no-one will have to move ??

What's the point ? I'm lost..completely.

Its a good point.

To still get your rent paid higher than the cap will be extremely difficult.

Chucky will try and say all these low earners, pensioners and disabled will still get the high rents paid to stay in London. What people are forgetting is that that £20 million is a fund to also help people move away from London.

Lots of people will apply to stay and still get their high rents paid but I would guess most of these will have an answer no sorry but we will give you £1000 cash to move to cheaper area and then yo will also have more disposable cash every week instead of most of your £500 going towards rent and council tax.

olly300

Shakethedisease wrote: »

* Elephant in the room moment *

But can anyone tell me why they are reducing LHA, and all the hoo-haa that goes with it... only to pay out millions of tax-payers money in 'grants' to those affected, in order to top up those rents to 'pre-reduction' levels so no-one will have to move ??

What's the point ? I'm lost..completely.

The thing is no new claimants will be able to get the money.

Instead of doing what governments normally do - get out of recession, make sure unemployment is falling and then curb benefits they are saying his now because they have to sound tough to the party faithful.

I won't be surprised if they have to back track on some of the policies in the next 2 years until the economy is better.

Silverbull

olly300 wrote: »

The thing is no new claimants will be able to get the money.

Instead of doing what governments normally do - get out of recession, make sure unemployment is falling and then curb benefits they are saying his now because they have to sound tough to the party faithful.

I won't be surprised if they have to back track on some of the policies in the next 2 years until the economy is better.

That is assuming the economy is better.

Even with the cuts things are getting out of control.

This crisis is becoming worse than the situation that led up to the great depression.

They are making things worse buy propping up and covering up and telling everyone we are in a recovery.

Its just kicking the can and making it worse.

carolt

careinthecommunity wrote: »

yes obviously hence the comment ...





i didnt say highly,

low argument carlot, i will call you on this

It's a very big site,as big as this one, so I wouldn't like to predict it is not discussed anywhere at all - but I think if you go to mumsnet hoping to find non-stop discussion of X factor, you will be disappointed.

Let's just say it's a nicer class of mum...

Graham_Devon

Iain Duncan smith has said in no uncertain terms, landlords have been playing the government for too long. He accused labour of paying out far too much in housing benefits and just upping it each year. This has trapped people in houses in which even if they worked full time, they would not be able to afford them.

Caroline Flint apparently had to concede.

olly300

Silverbull wrote: »

They are making things worse buy propping up and covering up and telling everyone we are in a recovery.

They aren't actually lying because there is a difference between economic growth statistics and unemployment figures.

The general trend in recessions is that it takes 3 years after economic growth figures show positive figures before unemployment starts coming down.

This suits the Tories fine as with a 5 year term, unemployment will be decreasing when they go to the polls so they can offer tax cuts to get re-elected.

However if they can't cut harshly now then they risk not being in government in 5 years or being part of coalition again.

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Iain Duncan smith has said in no uncertain terms, landlords have been playing the government for too long. He accused labour of paying out far too much in housing benefits and just upping it each year. This has trapped people in houses in which even if they worked full time, they would not be able to afford them.

Caroline Flint apparently had to concede.

The rules about bedrooms for children under 18 don't help either. They should all be abolished apart from children of different genders over 10 not being allowed to share a room.