arrears have increased by 340% following the housing benefit cuts

demystified

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I do feel sorry for those that are struggling with this. Though in some of the cases I have heard, it's not so much struggling, just re-adjusting. For example, one lady on the radio was complaining she now had to pay £14 per week more for her 3 bed.

Her son was living with her (so required 2 beds) though he was 18 and in employment. She didn't feel it was "fair" to ask him for the £14 per week, and that the taxpayer should pay.

I do hope the government stick with it. It will bring rents down in the end. It will have too, as the private sector can't afford what landlords are demanding in the same way housing benefits could.

I used to know someone who lived alone in a 3 bedroom council owned house, her husband has passed away years ago, her daughter lived in her own council house on benefits with her two grown up, and frankly bone idle sons, and she was complaining like mad that her rent had gone up to £55 a month.

I struggled to keep a straight face, honestly.

CKhalvashi

N1AK wrote: »

You wanted to solve a £700,000,000,000 deficit. Now suddenly after claiming £2 billion is nothing you're actually talking £50 billion a year in extra tax of which you intend to spend some undefined amount on increased benefits.

Do you have any idea just how nonsensical your suggested tax solution is? There are literally dozens of problems from how it would bankrupt many mortgage holders to how it would destroy private education and those employed theirs jobs.

It would result in a £12k increase in our household tax bill and we aren't even high rate tax payers; we'd leave (which to be fair we've considered regardless of tax). So instead of getting £16k a year in tax, plus whatever in VAT and tax on our work for our employers, from us you'd get nothing

I'm merely suggesting that I consider £25k (after tax) a reasonable amount for a family of 2 adults to live on (children would be considered separately), so if we were to set a minimum income floor of £1000 a month and work up, IMO this would be fair. 50% of any income above this would, of course, be anyones to keep.

On a £12k increase, for example, assuming you don't have children and you have a household income of less than £50k a year, would become a £3600 increase (spitting 70% out at this level).

The total increase in tax that OH worked out, on very rough figures, would be around £200bn (Including VAT at 25% etc), of which £60bn would go out in benefits, and of course, an annual deficit being around £90bn, leaving £50bn at the end of it (IYSWIM)

Sorry for any confusion there, I think it was a mix of bad English and trying to type on iPhone that did that!

CK

dori2o

woodgreen2013 wrote: »

In a statement, the Department for Work and Pensions said, "This reform will save hard working taxpayers almost £1 billion over the next two years and will help restore fairness to our housing benefit system."

This really annoys me, not only with the lies etc that come from IDS, Osborne, Cameron, McVey etc, but also those benefit bashers on here. They all seem to imply that only non-working people or rather non-taxpayers are the ones receiving these benefits, when the reality is that the majority of housing benefit claimants are 'hard working taxpayers' who have been caught up in a period of rising rents caused almost entirely by Landlords greed.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

This really annoys me, not only with the lies etc that come from IDS, Osborne, Cameron, McVey etc, but also those benefit bashers on here. They all seem to imply that only non-working people or rather non-taxpayers are the ones receiving these benefits, when the reality is that the majority of housing benefit claimants are 'hard working taxpayers' who have been caught up in a period of rising rents caused almost entirely by Landlords greed.

rents are determined by supply and demand

unfortunately demand is artificial increased by housing benefits so the price rises

reduce HB and the demand at that price will fall
everyone except landlords (greedy or otherwise ) will win.

grizzly1911

demystified wrote: »

I used to know someone who lived alone in a 3 bedroom council owned house, her husband has passed away years ago, her daughter lived in her own council house on benefits with her two grown up, and frankly bone idle sons, and she was complaining like mad that her rent had gone up to £55 a month.

I struggled to keep a straight face, honestly.

I wonder if the LA had proactively sought to rehouse/downsize this person to free up available rooms? Makes me wonder if LAs were doing their job?

silverwhistle

OffGridLiving wrote: »

This is my issue with the spare room subsidy. It's supposed to encourage people to move from their family homes and into smaller accommodation once the kids have flown the nest. If the accommodation isn't available then it's just a tax.

As succinct a summary of the situation as I've seen.

It's a difficult one. When I left uni in the second half of the 70s I lived in a combination of bedsits/lodgings/shared houses and parents as I moved around with my company before buying a house alone when I was 28. It wasn't easy then either, and I didn't run a car. (I also wasn't very ambitious, so that probably delayed me a bit!).

I've come across some unrealistic attitudes about the sort of individual flat somebody should be able to afford, normally from unemployed (+unemployable) people, but the difference is that I could put up with what I did as I was looking to the future. The prospect of a lifetime living in a single room in today's more affluent society would be enough to bring on depression in anyone.

Talking about benefits putting up rents and prices is a bit of a red herring: it certainly impacts the situation, but there isn't enough acknowledgement of the impact of the supply side. That's my O level economics kicking in, and if I can recall that from over 40 years ago why can't the ministers, with all their well-paid advisers? Probably because they're a bit like the first American Indians when the saw the big white sails of the explorer's ships; a complete lack of comprehension or recognition from something far from their personal experience.

buttscratcher

http://www.bshf.org/published-information/publication.cfm?thePubID=5E017604-15C5-F4C0-99F1DFE5F12DBC2A

Analysis of figures from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) indicates that:

1.The number of Housing Benefit claimants reached a new high of 4.95 million in December 2011

2. In-work households account for almost all (93 per cent) of the increase in the number of claimants in 2010 and 2011

3. In December 2011 almost one in four households who rented their accommodation and were in employment received Housing Benefit


The second statistic if even half true is just bad. In the good old 80's my dad was able to buy a decent sized 3 bed terrace in SE London on a bus drivers wage whilst my mum worked part time 4 hours a day as she had to be there to look after her 3 children.

Now, even with both me and my wife working full time with 2 kids, we just can't afford to rent and save for our future anymore, culminating in us living with my parents in that same 3 bed terrace.
Times have definitely changed and IMO for the worst.

CLAPTON

buttscratcher wrote: »

http://www.bshf.org/published-information/publication.cfm?thePubID=5E017604-15C5-F4C0-99F1DFE5F12DBC2A

Analysis of figures from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) indicates that:

1.The number of Housing Benefit claimants reached a new high of 4.95 million in December 2011

2. In-work households account for almost all (93 per cent) of the increase in the number of claimants in 2010 and 2011

3. In December 2011 almost one in four households who rented their accommodation and were in employment received Housing Benefit


The second statistic if even half true is just bad. In the good old 80's my dad was able to buy a decent sized 3 bed terrace in SE London on a bus drivers wage whilst my mum worked part time 4 hours a day as she had to be there to look after her 3 children.

Now, even with both me and my wife working full time with 2 kids, we just can't afford to rent and save for our future anymore, culminating in us living with my parents in that same 3 bed terrace.
Times have definitely changed and IMO for the worst.

indeed so

the combination of the increase in population
and the lack of house building
and the absurd housing benefit subsidy is largely responsible for the increase in property prices and rents

buttscratcher

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed so

the combination of the increase in population
and the lack of house building
and the absurd housing benefit subsidy is largely responsible for the increase in property prices and rents

For some folk nothing has changed much- for example, if my folks were well paid professionals they would have been able to simply buy a bigger nicer property and likewise, if I was educated and a professional today I'd be a homeowner even with todays prices although I'd have to settle for a smaller house lol

CLAPTON

buttscratcher wrote: »

For some folk nothing has changed much- for example, if my folks were well paid professionals they would have been able to simply buy a bigger nicer property and likewise, if I was educated and a professional today I'd be a homeowner even with todays prices although I'd have to settle for a smaller house lol

sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say.