Workers claiming Housing Benefit nearly doubles in 3 years

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's widely known, that while all the hurrah happens over employment figures, more and more people are being left with no option but to work part time.

This makes the job figures look fantastic. However, it doesn't help people pay their rent.

As a taxpayer I'd rather pay a proportion of someone's rent than all of it. We're getting somewhere if part time work is better than relying fully on benefits. Once people get into work they'll realise it's not that bad and it's much easier to get a better paid job if you're already in the world of work.

My guess would be that's why the amounts being claimed haven't been included because more people looking to work is a positive response to increased living costs.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

As a taxpayer I'd rather pay a proportion of someone's rent than all of it. We're getting somewhere if part time work is better than relying fully on benefits. Once people get into work they'll realise it's not that bad and it's much easier to get a better paid job if you're already in the world of work.

My guess would be that's why the amounts being claimed haven't been included because more people looking to work is a positive response to increased living costs.

I really have no idea what you are on about here.

I think you are trying to pedal the notion that it's not workers already in the workplace struggling, but people moving from unemployed and into work that make up these figures?

This is a load of unsubstantiated, unresearched nonsense.

Is this really what you are trying to pedal, or have I got something wrong? Only the unemployed figures do not correlate in any way, shape, or form.

Can you not simply accept people are struggling to pay the rent?!

You specifically state:
"We're getting somewhere if part time work is better than relying fully on benefits. Once people get into work they'll realise it's not that bad and it's much easier to get a better paid job if you're already in the world of work."

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

Landlord registration required. Yearly limits set on rent increases (above or below inflation).

I don't see how that would resolve things overnight.

Whenever there's a thread about rents there's always a point of view that rents increases are at or below inflation anyway so that's, arguably, already in place.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

Yearly limits set on rent increases (above or below inflation).

So as you gradually reduce the legally allowable rents below market rents:

1. What do you think will happen to the supply of rentals
2. How are the people going to be housed that can no longer be housed because of your disastrous policies*


*When examining part 2, remember that the Government hasn't got any more money to spend. If Labour in opposition are even admitting that there isn't any more money you can be sure that the coffers are empty.

FTBFun

ILW wrote: »

Landlord registration required. Yearly limits set on rent increases (above or below inflation).

Restrictions on rental supply? That will help a lot.

Building more property, and bringing disused property into use, is the only way to bring rents down.

ILW

Generali wrote: »

So as you gradually reduce the legally allowable rents below market rents:

1. What do you think will happen to the supply of rentals
2. How are the people going to be housed that can no longer be housed because of your disastrous policies*


*When examining part 2, remember that the Government hasn't got any more money to spend. If Labour in opposition are even admitting that there isn't any more money you can be sure that the coffers are empty.

The number of houses would not be reduced so why would this affect availability?

They would not just remain empty.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

ILW wrote: »

The number of houses would not be reduced so why would this affect availability?

They would not just remain empty.

Wouldn't these BTLs then be sold (if they are not making a profit) and the people buying the houses won't necessarily (indeed, will highly unlikely) be the people who are receipt of HB. There will be a smaller pool of housing for them to choose from, albeit there will be an increase in home ownership - but isn't this one of the causes of the problem in the first place?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you are trying to pedal the notion that it's not workers already in the workplace struggling, but people moving from unemployed and into work that make up these figures?

This is a load of unsubstantiated, unresearched nonsense.

That's quite a clumsily constructed strawman. It would be clearly ridiculous to say that everyone of these new claimants is an unemployed person moving into work - that's why I didn't say that.

ILW

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Wouldn't these BTLs then be sold (if they are not making a profit) and the people buying the houses won't necessarily (indeed, will highly unlikely) be the people who are receipt of HB. There will be a smaller pool of housing for them to choose from, albeit there will be an increase in home ownership - but isn't this one of the causes of the problem in the first place?

The majority of BTLs were bought 10 or so years ago and would still be making a healthy profit even if rents were substantially lowered

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

That's quite a clumsily constructed strawman. It would be clearly ridiculous to say that everyone of these new claimants is an unemployed person moving into work - that's why I didn't say that.

What are you trying to say then when you use sentences such as this?

My guess would be that's why the amounts being claimed haven't been included because more people looking to work is a positive response to increased living costs.

It's not a strawman, I'm just wondering what you are trying to say. I never stated "everyone" either, but it certainly seems to me that you believe these figures are made up mainly of people returning to work from being unemployed.

I'd like ot know how, or why you have come to that conclusion.

Relying on a fall back position of "I didn't say every single one" when no one said you did, doesn't quite clarify what on earth you are trying to suggest.