At least 10% Housing benefit cuts could be on the way

fordcapri2000

http://www.24dash.com/news/central_government/2015-06-04-Housing-benefit-to-be-targeted-in-Osbornes-welfare-cuts-IFS



This Government should be aiming for a much bigger percentage, maybe they are.
Over the next 10 years as things stand the UK is set to pay on housing benefit alone of £1/3 Trillion, how much social housing could that build.

Time to stop putting money in landlords pockets.

stator

I guess slumlords will be rubbing their hands with glee as more people will be forced into living in manky dumps.

lisyloo

hmm............we saw with the bedroom tax that there were not smaller properties for people to move into.
As a worker/commuter I would like to see long term unemployed people move out (certainly in London) to free up places for worker/commuters, however I fear that there will be unintended consequences - like perhaps people cutting back on eating.

ukcarper

I'm not sure shipping all the unemployed out of London is the solution no matter how attractive it sounds.

I can see a two tier rental market developing with better properties going to people paying for their own rent, let's hope we don't go back to how it was in 60s and 70s.

wotsthat

fordcapri2000 wrote: »

Over the next 10 years as things stand the UK is set to pay on housing benefit alone of £1/3 Trillion, how much social housing could that build.

I've an idea; why can't a government reduce spending and not spend the savings elsewhere?

lisyloo

I'm not shipping all the unemployed out of London is the solution no matter how attractive it sounds.

Those of us who are working in London are constantly told it's much cheaper/better up North.
The trouble is that there aren't as many jobs in the cheaper areas (that's why the property is in less demand and therefore cheaper).

I am not in favour of moving people into sub-standard accomodation.
I do believe people are entitled to basic standards or health & safety.
But for those who are unlikely to be able to ever work - why can we not move them to much cheaper areas? so those of us who are able (and lucky enough with our health) to be able to make a financial contribution can live closer to where the jobs are?

I do realise it's almost certainly "not as simple as that", but I'd like to see the arguments why.

chewmylegoff

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not shipping all the unemployed out of London is the solution no matter how attractive it sounds.

I can see a two tier rental market developing with better properties going to people paying for their own rent, let's hope we don't go back to how it was in 60s and 70s.

Why wouldn't the better properties go to people paying for it themselves? Generally speaking the "better" a property is the more it costs. If I earn £20k a year I am not going to be able to afford to spend as much on housing as someone who earns £100k a year. It seems likely their house will be "better" than mine.

The logical extension of your post is that you think that the poorer quality houses should be occupied by people paying their own way whilst the better ones have benefits claimants living in them. In such a situation why would anyone want to work?

marleyboy

lisyloo wrote: »

Those of us who are working in London are constantly told it's much cheaper/better up North.
The trouble is that there aren't as many jobs in the cheaper areas (that's why the property is in less demand and therefore cheaper).

I am not in favour of moving people into sub-standard accomodation.
I do believe people are entitled to basic standards or health & safety.
But for those who are unlikely to be able to ever work - why can we not move them to much cheaper areas? so those of us who are able (and lucky enough with our health) to be able to make a financial contribution can live closer to where the jobs are?

I do realise it's almost certainly "not as simple as that", but I'd like to see the arguments why.

To quote a Southerners response to fraking. NOT IN OUR BACK YARD!

Up North is grim so they say, except when there is no more room at the inn, when it becomes "cheaper and better".

Fact is, up North there is no more room at the inn. Maybe London should sort their own mishaps out before contemplating dumping their problems up North as an easy solution for Londoners.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Why wouldn't the better properties go to people paying for it themselves? Generally speaking the "better" a property is the more it costs. If I earn £20k a year I am not going to be able to afford to spend as much on housing as someone who earns £100k a year. It seems likely their house will be "better" than mine.

The logical extension of your post is that you think that the poorer quality houses should be occupied by people paying their own way whilst the better ones have benefits claimants living in them. In such a situation why would anyone want to work?

The simple solution is to pay benefits including housing costs. That way you can choose to live in a studio flat with 6 others in Mayfair or an 8 bed mansion in some Northern hell hole.

missbiggles1

marleyboy wrote: »

To quote a Southerners response to fraking. NOT IN OUR BACK YARD!

Up North is grim so they say, except when there is no more room at the inn, when it becomes "cheaper and better".

Fact is, up North there is no more room at the inn. Maybe London should sort their own mishaps out before contemplating dumping their problems up North as an easy solution for Londoners.

It isn't a question of dumping people up north but it's ridiculous to allocate a vital resource like social housing to people who have no intention of working whilst those in low paid but essential work have nowhere to live.

marleyboy

So we can assume relocating up North ISN'T a solution either. Be that there is just as many problems as there are down South?