MSE News: Government shrugs off Lords benefits defeat

rogerblack

casement wrote: »

I think that people should stop and think for a while. Many of these people affected will have been put out of work through no fault of their own and it may not be possible for them to move to cheaper accommodation.

In addition, for those that are forced to move out of the area, they may have to move to areas of lower employment.
Where they have fewer, or no contacts to help them get work.
And of course, adding one more person seeking work to those areas.

Killmark

rogerblack wrote: »

In addition, for those that are forced to move out of the area, they may have to move to areas of lower employment.
Where they have fewer, or no contacts to help them get work.
And of course, adding one more person seeking work to those areas.

Its good that we have recruitment agencies and the internet then.

Seriously don't people consider commuting, many people in the south east do this every day because they can't afford to live in London.

If anything it might help spread the skills and knowledge base around, one of the reasons poor economic areas lacks job creation is because there is a lack of people with the desired skills and experience and might help solve the brain drain of the northern regions.

jgriggle

Don't forget who the real winners are in all of this.

Not the families who are being provided with a roof over their heads - no one should begrudge them that.

It's the buy-to-let landlords who ultimately receive all of the benefits money in the form of rent. Lots of people out there who will eventually own a house outright, with the entire mortgage having been paid by the taxpayer.

The only answer is to build more social housing. Stop greedy landlords exploiting that most basic of human needs - the need for shelter.

Killmark

jgriggle wrote: »

The only answer is to build more social housing. Stop greedy landlords exploiting that most basic of human needs - the need for shelter.

You mean people who invest their money and pay tax on the profits and only able to claim back business expenses like the mortgage interest?

Yours is a simplistic argument and ignores some fundamental concepts of a capitalist society.

Of course we could build more social housing but who's going to pay for it and who will be the core beneficiaries?

Even if this happened your switching from giving people the choice of where they live and replacing this with benefit ghetto's.

The idea that the social housing lost over recent decades could be replaced is a fantasy.

Good luck selling it to the electorate.

ermine

zagfles wrote: »

Utter rubbish. A family with 4 kids living an average rent area could easily exceed the cap.

And why, !!!!!!, should other people be part of paying for this precious family to indulge itself in having such an abnormally high number of kids?

It's about time some of these benefits were given in kind, to reduce the perverse incentives that seem to be happening.

tifo

jgriggle wrote: »

Lots of people out there who will eventually own a house outright, with the entire mortgage having been paid by the taxpayer.

Not really. They only get mortgage interest as a benefit and the principle sum borrowed still remains to be paid by them.

tifo

Many people are against having kids (or more than 1) but no children means no future work force. The govt needs to tax as many people as it can so it can pay off it's borrowing. Can you imagine a retired workforce not being replaced by young blood?

JimmyTheWig

tifo wrote: »

Not really. They only get mortgage interest as a benefit and the principle sum borrowed still remains to be paid by them.

What they meant was the buy-to-let landlord buys the house with a mortgage.
A family move in and the rent is paid by housing benefit.
Eventually the buy-to-let landlord pays off his mortgage with the rent and he (not the family on benefits) owns a house paid for entirely by the tax payer.

Killmark

tifo wrote: »

Many people are against having kids (or more than 1) but no children means no future work force. The govt needs to tax as many people as it can so it can pay off it's borrowing. Can you imagine a retired workforce not being replaced by young blood?

Bigger families tend to have higher rates of worklessness

Children who grow up in workless households are more likely to be unemployed and thus perpetuate this cycle.

By your argument maybe we should restrict child benefit only to high rate tax payers to encourage them to have children.

Killmark

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

What they meant was the buy-to-let landlord buys the house with a mortgage.
A family move in and the rent is paid by housing benefit.
Eventually the buy-to-let landlord pays off his mortgage with the rent and he (not the family on benefits) owns a house paid for entirely by the tax payer.

Meanwhile they will be paying 20-40% tax on the profits from renting it.

i.e rent house at 15,000 per year, pay 3,000 in mortgage interest, 1000 in other associated expenses = profit of 11,000 so tax liable of between 2,200 and 4,400 in tax leaving between 6,600 and 8,800 for capital repayments.

Plus when they sell if house price inflation has occurred then they will likely incur capital gains tax.