Do you support social housing?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

How would you suggest we discourage them?

there are two issues it seems to me

- in general, taking all things into account, is it good for children to be brought up with two parents?

- if for whatever reason, the parents decide to separate, then should the state make additional financial and housing resources available to them?

Now there will be clear cases where there may be violence or other major issues, but the general situation is a choice made partly determined by the generous financial and housing support.


'Discourage ' is this situation means 'not to give additional financial/housing support' over and above what the 'family' would receive.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is the excellent support given to parents who separate, one of the main reasons the 25% of Uk children grow up living with only one parent.
On balance is it better for family separation to be funded and supported by the taxpayer or would it be on balance better to discourage such separation.

As someone who has separated I can tell you the financial aspect is very low in the majority of cases.

michaels

At present, anecdotally at least, the benefits system discourages some couples from living together who would otherwise be contemplating it. Is that a socially desireable outcome?

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

As someone who has separated I can tell you the financial aspect is very low in the majority of cases.

maybe you could outline your circumstances and tells us how the system worked for you.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe you could outline your circumstances and tells us how the system worked for you.

Didn't use it

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Didn't use it

OK, but doesn't add much to the debate.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

OK, but doesn't add much to the debate.

It does because in most cases divorce/separation is a very emotional experience and the financial implications are well down the agenda.

N1AK

Hooloovoo wrote: »

How do you propose determining if they can now afford to pay full market rent without a mandatory reassessment every x number of years?

You charge full market rent and people with insufficient incomes would receive benefits, including housing benefit, as they already do. It doesn't require a separate 'assessment' system.

Kennyboy66

michaels wrote: »

At present, anecdotally at least, the benefits system discourages some couples from living together who would otherwise be contemplating it. Is that a socially desireable outcome?

I think anecdotally sums it up.

The most recent report from Joseph Rowntree Foundation (a load of commies, I know), suggested that for those non-working families on benefits there was actually a penalty to separate living in most cases, as it costs more to live apart.

Admittedly this is somewhat subjective, but it at least tries to calculate what the benefit / penalty might be in a variety of circumstances.

The problem is probably better formed in that too many fathers (as women account for more than 90% of single parents) avoid or don't take full responsibility for their actions. No amount of tinkering with financial rewards and penalties will change this in any meaningful way.


http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/benefits-tax-families-full.pdf

Hooloovoo

N1AK wrote: »

You charge full market rent and people with insufficient incomes would receive benefits, including housing benefit, as they already do. It doesn't require a separate 'assessment' system.

That's ok. I'd support that system too.

Whether it's a separate 'assessment' system or not I don't really care. The point is that some sort of assessment is made every so often and the appropriate benefits updated. As opposed to the only assessment taking place at the point you are allocated the house.

Whether this is booting someone out of a house once they can afford to pay normal market rents, or simply increasing their rent up to market rate and using the extra income to build more houses, I don't mind.