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

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

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.



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.

I spent 2-3 hours a day commuting into London and I'm unhappy about the current situation but I'm not happy with the way the Tories are cutting benefits I don't think blanket cuts are the way forward some fundamental changes are required.

marleyboy

lisyloo wrote: »

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

Lets not forget Taxpayers are not all restricted to London. Even us Northerners have to pay our taxes, on top of likewise suffering from a lack of jobs, a lack of housing and a lack of space.

lisyloo

Lets not forget Taxpayers are not all restricted to London.

Of course.
It's bad too for Northerners to pay to put people up in Mayfair.
(BTW - I never said move people up North - I said "out of London" and to "cheaper areas" - that includes wales, scotland, cornwall etc. AND my back yard too).

Even us Northerners have to pay our taxes, on top of likewise suffering from a lack of jobs, a lack of housing and a lack of space.

Interesting.
I'm frequently told I should relocate as it's loads better than London.

marleyboy

I'm frequently told I should relocate as it's loads better than London.

Ironically, were told Londons streets are paved with gold. Having been there I can certainly say it wasn't gold I was scraping off my shoe.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

what problem is being caused?

optimal use of resources is indeed essential.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

what problem is being caused?

optimal use of resources is indeed essential.

1. You. will be giving up and saying it's OK not to work so long as it's not on London.

2. You will create ghettos of unemployed people and put a strain on services in already poor areas.

There's 2 to start with.

princeofpounds

Those on housing benefit in London are rarely asked to even move out of the borough they apply in.


I do get it when, say, a Hampshire resident isn't required to move to Dorset.


But the logic of calculating benefit rates within a single London borough has always escaped me. We aren't talking about paying people to stay in London, we are paying people to stay in Westminster and Chelsea.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

1. You. will be giving up and saying it's OK not to work so long as it's not on London.

2. You will create ghettos of unemployed people and put a strain on services in already poor areas.

There's 2 to start with.

they make no sense

1. the alternative is between some-one doing useful work (like a school teacher, engineer etc) being able to live where there is a shortage of labour compare with some-one who contributes nothing.

2. there is no need to create ghettos (unless you are in favour of council housing) and money follows the unemployed so they will bring welcome income and some employment to your 'already poor areas'.


a better use of resources to the benefit of everyone

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

they make no sense

1. the alternative is between some-one doing useful work (like a school teacher, engineer etc) being able to live where there is a shortage of labour compare with some-one who contributes nothing.

2. there is no need to create ghettos (unless you are in favour of council housing) and money follows the unemployed so they will bring welcome income and some employment to your 'already poor areas'.


a better use of resources to the benefit of everyone

The way I understand it certain benefits council tax for example are part funded by local authorities so if you increase proportion of properties where that benefit is claim it will have a detrimental effect on that local authority

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

The way I understand it certain benefits council tax for example are part funded by local authorities so if you increase proportion of properties where that benefit is claim it will have a detrimental effect on that local authority

that seems a very trivial matter compared to the benefits of the system
i.e. new money into the local (poorer) community from all their benefits mainly funded from central government
plus better schools and services where most needed.

a win for everyone