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!
London. Housing benefit claimants shifted outside the capital
Comments
-
MacMickster wrote: »It was always clear that a large number of families reliant solely on benefits, were effectively living beyond not only their means, but the means of families where all adults worked.
The true picture of supply and demand (and hence market rents) for rented property in London will not emerge until all of these families are relocated to areas where there is less cost to the public purse.
In doing it they are merely displacing the problem with consequential affect it will have on those "low cost" communities that will become more expensive communities, both form increased rents and with the need for increased infrastructure to go with them. As a PP said it will lead to increased problems for the wider country. The impact on the public purse will be limited.
If the problem is contained it can be treated more effitively. The problem is that they have no intention of dealing with the problem they just want to get rid of the "smell under their nose".
Perhaps it would be better to encourage those with jobs to relocate and then reduce demand, quite why they would want/choose live in some of the places is beyond me anyway. It would also have the benefit of moving private spending out of capital to the regions."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »In doing it they are merely displacing the problem with consequential affect it will have on those "low cost" communities that will become more expensive communities, both form increased rents and with the need for increased infrastructure to go with them. As a PP said it will lead to increased problems for the wider country. The impact on the public purse will be limited.
I disagree. If people want to live in a nice property in a high cost area then they should have to work for that privilege. Reducing demand for rental property in the capital will, in time, reduce rents for those who work and have to pay for their accommodation.
There are many places in the country where there is no shortage of housing, and the problem is a declining population. There is likely to be little pressure on infrastructure and even benefits being spent will help local businesses."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
MacMickster wrote: »I disagree. If people want to live in a nice property in a high cost area then they should have to work for that privilege. Reducing demand for rental property in the capital will, in time, reduce rents for those who work and have to pay for their accommodation.
There are many places in the country where there is no shortage of housing, and the problem is a declining population. There is likely to be little pressure on infrastructure and even benefits being spent will help local businesses.
People live where they live. I doubt the majority are living in nice property. Many do work providing key services but still need their pay supplemented. Don't dispute there may be some people in the wrong sized property for their needs.
Where in the country do you believe there is no shortage of housing in an acceptable state of repair? What do you class as infrastructure?
It is simply trying to side step the problem"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
How come there is no sympathy for the people in areas where this forced migration are going to end up? Have they got loads of spare houses?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
-
How come there is no sympathy for the people in areas where this forced migration are going to end up? Have they got loads of spare houses?
it might be deduced that in areas of cheap properties there are more spare properties available than is areas of very expensive properties.
it would be surprising if the reverse were true.0 -
Quite right. Why should the tax payer be paying for people to live in London and not go to work. Send 'em to Hull.0
-
Quite right. Why should the tax payer be paying for people to live in London and not go to work. Send 'em to Hull.
What if they do go to work and fulfill necessary jobs?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Their employers are going to incur a bigger transport bill.0
-
..IF..
Otherwise there are some empty properties in Jaywick, Essex, that Ive recently discovered. They would do.grizzly1911 wrote: »What if they do go to work and fulfill necessary jobs?0 -
The comments for the article are interesting.
Why should I pay for other people to live somewhere I couldn't possibly afford to live myself?
Councils intelligently deciding to house 5 families in the provinces for the cost of 1 in London? We've never had local government show such excellent sense!
Bad news - but let's not forget that we're talking about Housing Benefit being capped at £400 A WEEK .
That's almost £21,000 a year !! To be able to afford that I'd have to earn over £33,000 a year before tax. And that's just on rent.
Stills sounds like an awful lot of taxpayers money to me.
"Expelled" or just not able to pay over £20,000 a year or more in rent on housing benefit? That is the odd thing about opposing the housing benefit cap - you have to argue in effect that everyone has a right to live in central London come what may - even if it means £30,000 or £40,000 a year in rent. And that is not a benefit you can readily pay out from taxes as it is way about average post tax incomes.
It's a terrible decision . Awful . But no worse than the decision to have a large family without the financial means to provide for them . The benefits system is a safety net , not an endlessly lactating cash cow , and at some point someone somewhere had to pull the plug on people living beyond what they can afford .
Unfortunately this is a lose lose situation , continue with hefty housing benefit payments and you feed the beast , remove them and punish the unfortunate and you become a monster . What a horrible situation in which to make that call . But it had to be made , and if this forces future generations to contemplate the merits and wisdom of starting or widening a family then it can serve society well .
I do , however , feel massive remorse for those who get burnt in its implementation .In case you hadn't already worked it out - the entire global financial system is predicated on the assumption that you're an idiot:cool:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards