Cons Mistake On Bedroom Tax - Not Enough Small Houses Anyway

CLAPTON

Presumably the reluctant payers have not been evicted so their behaviour is being rewarded by lots of 'free' money.
Totally rational and intelligent people.

vivatifosi

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

They are making an even bigger mistake with universal credit.

But trials have shown that tenants don't pay their rent and fall into arrears

There was an interesting segment on R4 yesterday about Universal Credit. It said that while the vast majority of people in social housing could manage their money, there were some begging the council not to pay them - particularly those who couldn't cope (perhaps due to learning difficulties etc) as well as those with addiction problems who would just spend the money. There was even a guy on the radio saying "please don't pay me the money, I'll only spend it".

michaels

N1AK wrote: »

Some tenants.

Some people abuse alcohol lets ban it and only allow it to be distributed by the government. Some people eat too much so supermarkets should be shut and food parcels supplied directly from the government...

If you allow people freedom then obviously some of them will screw it up. I'm not sure that we should just assume that anyone who is in need of benefits is too stupid/ignorant to manage their finances; and if they are then we should be solving that issue so they could one day live independent of state aid rather than handling it all for them so that they aren't capable of moving off of the states teat.

But when we as tax payers hand out benefit money is it that we want to give those receiving it a sum big enough to live on but are happy if they chose to live on the street and spend it all on alcohol or are we actually wanting to absolve our own consciences by seeing them housed and preferably fed. As we are the ones chosing to make the gift surely we can also decide the form that the gift takes?

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

But when we as tax payers hand out benefit money is it that we want to give those receiving it a sum big enough to live on but are happy if they chose to live on the street and spend it all on alcohol or are we actually wanting to absolve our own consciences by seeing them housed and preferably fed. As we are the ones chosing to make the gift surely we can also decide the form that the gift takes?

When we pay someone benefits I don't want it to encourage a kind of dependence that makes it more difficult for people to move to supporting themselves in future. I have nothing against giving people who don't want paying directly support (of some form) nor do I mind giving people less freedom to spend if they show they aren't currently capable of doing so responsibly; I have a much larger issue with taking a nannying position towards everyone when the majority can handle their finances perfectly well.

chem1st

vivatifosi wrote: »

There was an interesting segment on R4 yesterday about Universal Credit. It said that while the vast majority of people in social housing could manage their money, there were some begging the council not to pay them - particularly those who couldn't cope (perhaps due to learning difficulties etc) as well as those with addiction problems who would just spend the money. There was even a guy on the radio saying "please don't pay me the money, I'll only spend it".

The big problem is the market manipulation wrt housing.

The government sets the rent, by setting rents and then paying them via housing benefit. The vast majority of people would never pay so much in rent if given the choice.

Private rents would fall and so would social rents. Social rents are expensive and in many cases above what they would be in a free-market.

We need to do away with housing benefit altogether (and I say this as someone who has claimed in between precarious employment). The dole should be upped, and people free to spend their dole on housing IF THEY SO WISH.

If the dole is £71 a week, then social rents need to fall to some £15 per week.
If many local people earn some £200 a week, then the cost of housing should be £50 or less per week.

Moby

Thatcher sold off the social housing stock which was bought up at baseline prices by Rachmann landlords.......... who then hiked the rents...which we all pay for through our taxes to fund welfare.

ukcarper

chem1st wrote: »

The big problem is the market manipulation wrt housing.

The government sets the rent, by setting rents and then paying them via housing benefit. The vast majority of people would never pay so much in rent if given the choice.

Private rents would fall and so would social rents. Social rents are expensive and in many cases above what they would be in a free-market.

We need to do away with housing benefit altogether (and I say this as someone who has claimed in between precarious employment). The dole should be upped, and people free to spend their dole on housing IF THEY SO WISH.

If the dole is £71 a week, then social rents need to fall to some £15 per week.
If many local people earn some £200 a week, then the cost of housing should be £50 or less per week.

That would be true if all private rental was occupied by people on housing benefit where in reality the minority is. Where I am the typical rent is higher than LHA I'm sure if housing benefit was removed rents would fall to some extent but not to the level required to be affordable for the majority people on housing benefit.

grizzly1911

chem1st wrote: »

The big problem is the market manipulation wrt housing.

The government sets the rent, by setting rents and then paying them via housing benefit. The vast majority of people would never pay so much in rent if given the choice.

Private rents would fall and so would social rents. Social rents are expensive and in many cases above what they would be in a free-market.

We need to do away with housing benefit altogether (and I say this as someone who has claimed in between precarious employment). The dole should be upped, and people free to spend their dole on housing IF THEY SO WISH.

If the dole is £71 a week, then social rents need to fall to some £15 per week.
If many local people earn some £200 a week, then the cost of housing should be £50 or less per week.

How do the government set the rent of private landlords?

If LLs are not paid directly many of those receiving the benefit simply won't provide for their rent for a whole variety of reasons. The ensuing mess will be expensive to police and resolve and the bill will increase.

In the SE many earn less than £200 per week but many more earn a lot more. Who do you think wins the battle? In an impoverished part of the NE it may work.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If LLs are not paid directly many of those receiving the benefit simply won't provide for their rent for a whole variety of reasons. The ensuing mess will be expensive to police and resolve and the bill will increase.

Landlords will have to do what all other businesses do. Run them properly. Only fair that LL's earn their money by working. Rather than have a Government\Council department do it for them.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Landlords will have to do what all other businesses do. Run them properly. Only fair that LL's earn their money by working. Rather than have a Government\Council department do it for them.

If there was any uncertainty that I would get paid I wouldn't offer the service.

Presumably clogging up the courts, with eviction requests and even more homeless requiring emergency housing, in an ever dwindling openly available stock, is worth it. No doubt the LLs cost will passed onto the tenant making their position even more tenuous. A few more CCJ s will help their cause no end.