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

chewmylegoff

marleyboy wrote: »

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?

If the state has the choice between paying the landlord of a house in Barrow in Furness £300 a month to house someone who doesn't work or the landlord of a property in London £3,000 to house that same person then the most sensible solution seems pretty straightforward to me and it doesn't involve the state paying £2,700 a month more than it needs to.

lisyloo

So we can assume relocating up North ISN'T a solution either.

It's certainly not a solution for millions of Londoners - there just aren't the (millions of) jobs and neither for anyone with a London centric job e.g. governemt or investment banking.

For one or two there might be a better standard of living to be found, but how many teachers would you need to move before all the Northern vacacies were filled? 20? 50? I don't know the number but it's certainly a drop in the ocean.

lisyloo

Maybe London should sort their own mishaps out before contemplating dumping their problems up North as an easy solution for Londoners.

I can see your point, but it's taxpayers that are paying the bill.

missbiggles1

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If the state has the choice between paying the landlord of a house in Barrow in Furness £300 a month to house someone who doesn't work or the landlord of a property in London £3,000 to house that same person then the most sensible solution seems pretty straightforward to me and it doesn't involve the state paying £2,700 a month more than it needs to.

Particularly if the person who doesn't want to work moves to an area where work is short, leaving suitable housing for workers where the work actually is.

ukcarper

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.

But how would you feel if you lived in the area where the long term unemployed were shipped to. If they are unable to work because of a disablity they quite often depend on family members as care is patchy to say the least.

ukcarper

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?

That's not the way it works where I am as most rental property is already price considerably higher than LHA. There is a misconception that people claiming LHA have high disposable income which is not the case.

wotsthat

This situation shows just how easy it is to give money away and how difficult it is to stop giving it away. I've never heard anyone on benefits expressing just how grateful they are to the taxpayer for funding them to live in the capital without work so they're hardly going to go anywhere quietly.

Drastic cuts therefore don't seem likely so talking about 'shipping' people up North is probably overblown. Now there's a Tory majority though it's time to squeeze people slowly and surely to encourage more people to take responsibility for stuff other grown ups take for granted.

Done right the people affected might be voting Tory when they discover what a boost to self esteem they get from looking after their own families instead of expecting other people to do it.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

But how would you feel if you lived in the area where the long term unemployed were shipped to. If they are unable to work because of a disablity they quite often depend on family members as care is patchy to say the least.

they might feel the same as people born in London who know that over 60% of the housing is allocated to people who weren't born there.

lisyloo

But how would you feel if you lived in the area where the long term unemployed were shipped to.

I wouldn't have an issue with a fair % being moved to my home town and I certainly wouldn't assume that just because that are long term unemployed they are bad people. Could afterall be you or me with a disability a few years down the line.

If they are unable to work because of a disablity they quite often depend on family members as care is patchy to say the least.

Yes I do appreciate that family connections are important to people especially those who need some form of support.
Ideally situations would be fairly assessed. I have little faith in that happening fairly given the experience of the bedroom tax, but in an ideal world if someone had circumstances (such as free carers) nearby then it would make sense to make an exception and move out those who don't have any good reason to stay.

Remember that some of us working have to live away from our homes and families (I do this). Service people do this all the time as do oil workers and many others, so whilst I have compassion for those who can't work we also have to bear in mind the circumstances of working people - which is frequently long commutes, not living where they want, not living close the family etc.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

they might feel the same as people born in London who know that over 60% of the housing is allocated to people who weren't born there.

Probably so but creating another problem to try and solve another is never the ans. I believe almost 1million people in work claim housing benefit this will impact on them as well.