March for Homes

cells

MARTYM8` wrote: »

£25 billion housing benefit bill and rising. And what happens when all these renters can't afford to buy and retire - who is going to pay their rents. Taxpayers!

Its an impending social and economic disaster. If we carry on as we are the housing benefit bill will exceed the NHS budget.

Maybe like some on here I shouldn't care about the next generation - but they are our kids, grandkids, nephews and nieces aren't they?

I used to think this too and hence assumed such a bubble could not last much more than a decade but recenty events suggest that the situation can be dragged a lot longer

eg they will limit housing benefit more and more to control the bill rather than do what is needed and build more homes.

for instance you might find that all those without kids are only given the room rate of HB rather than the full house rate.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't see any reason why lower paid people should be able to buy in London but there should be affordable accomodation and I'm not convinced LHA is the ans. I can't see how a city like London can function without low paid workers.

Something will have to give, if they're integral to the city then wages will increase I imagine. shouldn't be down to the government to intervene.

lisyloo

I am not advocating low paid workers being able to own, but clearly they need somewhere to live if we want bus drivers, sewer workers, waiters, teachers, firemen etc.

I guess currently they either travel, live somewhere that was bought ages ago or are subsidised by another working family member with a higher income.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

lisyloo wrote: »

I am not advocating low paid workers being able to own, but clearly they need somewhere to live if we want bus drivers, sewer workers, waiters, teachers, firemen etc.

I guess currently they either travel, live somewhere that was bought ages ago or are subsidised by another working family member with a higher income.

If the people who can't afford to buy aren't happy with their situation they should move and if their services really are that vital I'm sure companies will be prepared to increase their pay. I agree more homes are needed & I'm not sure perfectly good homes should be allowed to lay empty for years either. But neither of these are solution alone.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

I have no issue with your argument jack about work ethic and expectations but what does that mean long term?
Does it mean that the native waiter stays on benefits at the taxpers expense? Does it mean that someone from Romania comes here, lives in a room with 10 others for a couple of years which their happy to do because they can go back Home and live like a king.
Does the waiter slum it in the center and share? That maybe Ok if you're young but not so good if you're married and want a little privacy for your conjugals or heavan forbid a child. Or should he commute and pay high rail fares but have no home or pension?
I do believe people are entitled to expect a family life.
Can you see how this really isn't good?

Maybe some can go out of london? An apparently obvious solution. My oh had 12 months out of his chosen career. We had littlechoice but to come to London. complete career change is not so easy when your nearly 50. I'm not complaining as we love it here but just pointing out that its not always that easy.
Our issue was due to being successful and the higher you go in career terms the fewer jobs there are up the pyramid, so it'd not always about being unsuccessful and unskilled.

If you have kids the state looks after you if you work or not

my advice to anyone who is poor or working poor is to have kids as soon as you can find someone decent and spread them out a bit. You wont have a flash life but you won't starve amd while you might be cash poor at least you will be time rich

sadly the UK is becoming a society where unless you inherit modest wealth aka one basic house you will likely stay a member of the working poor.

ukcarper

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Something will have to give, if they're integral to the city then wages will increase I imagine. shouldn't be down to the government to intervene.

They already have and it's proving to be expensive.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

I am not advocating low paid workers being able to own, but clearly they need somewhere to live if we want bus drivers, sewer workers, waiters, teachers, firemen etc.

I guess currently they either travel, live somewhere that was bought ages ago or are subsidised by another working family member with a higher income.

About 5 million homes are social which means the gov rents them out at or near cost.

eg £100pw for a 2 bed flat in inner London which is much lower than the £300-£400pw going rate.


in London some areas are heavily council homes. Eg Hackney is extremely expensive but just over 50% of homes in Hackney are social which means half the residents pay no rent or rent thats not much more than even the cheapest parts of the UK

lisyloo

I don't believe that moving is that simple for many.
Some people provide free care for parents or grandchildren, others have kids in school sometimes at crucial stages.

We have moved for work and whilst it hasn't been a problem for us, it's certainly weird having no friends of family.
For many it would be a problem

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

They already have and it's proving to be expensive.

so, don't you think that supply and demand should determine the price of labour?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

so, don't you think that supply and demand should determine the price of labour?

I think supply and demand is more complicated than you do. We could try removing all in work benefits and see what happens not pretty I would imagine.