Cut benefits before increasing council tax

But we are all limited to where we can live by our own pockets, aren't we, regardless of taxes? I can't afford to live where I grew up as a child, much as I'd love to, but I'm not whining about it, I live where I can afford, much as the majority of us do.

If OP has so little left over at the end of the month before any perceived tax increase, she's taken on too big a mortgage for her budget. Simple as that. It wouldn't matter if it was taxes or an emergency situation tipping her over, it's happening because she's living somewhere she can barely afford.

And, yes, even in the South East, that is something she can change. It won't be easy, it won't be where or what she wants, but if you asked most of us, we aren't living in our dream locations, we are living where we can afford to, even if that means a long commute, etc.

That's life. Yes, it's much harder now, house wise, but frankly it's always been the same. Where you live is determined by what you can afford, how much debt you can managed, what your work situation is. And that includes the Council Tax bill, which incidentally is actually used to fund public facilities we all use, not just paying for benefits.

I hadn't actually opened your second link before but it actually fully supports what I was saying:

'The ONS expects natural change to turn negative in the mid-2030s, with the number of deaths exceeding the number of births each year. At this point, only migration will be causing the population to grow, as shown in chart 2.'

The ONS’s current projections, which are based on past migration patterns and current policy, show migration falling but continuing to add around 500,000 to 600,000 people to the population each year until 2026. This is high by historical 'standards. Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, net migration added around 200,000 people to the population each year. Before this, annual net migration was less than 100,000 and frequently negative (more people leaving than arriving).'

Doubling your over 65 population in the 2072 predication shows your theory - is totally incorrect

moving in 2022 from 12 million over 65s to 22 million is exasperating the situation we have now

Many pip claimants DO work and pay their taxes. In many cases, these motability schemes, enable disabled people to work.

Everyone knows that property in London is expensive ( or that you need to be earning a decent salary to live there). Why couldn’t OP have bought a property In a more affordable part of London, if that’s where she wants to live?

That is true of everyone though, whether they qualify for benefits or not.
I have a very long commute at the moment (in my adapted Mercedes van) and I’d desperately like to move nearer to my work. However the area I work in is vastly more expensive than where I live and I’ll have to pay stamp duty and higher council tax.
To get an adapted house the same size as the one I currently live in nearer to my work is unaffordable for me and I can’t just pick any old house, so I’m stuck where I am with a three hour round trip to work.

That isn’t the fault of those people who need UC or people like myself who rely on disability benefits - it’s a (stupid) feature of the housing market. As it is, I just have to cope as best I can. Helping others indirectly by paying my tax has nothing to do with me wanting to live in a more expensive area.

It does amaze me that the only parts of tax expenditure so many people on MN want to cut back is that money that goes to help others. Maybe we should be looking to reduce the amount spent on machines for killing people? Subsidies and tax breaks for polluting and environmentally damaging businesses? There are a lot of things I’d cut back on in public expenditure if I were in charge, but it wouldn’t be help for those of us who are struggling to put food on the table, and I say that as a disabled person on a low income.

So, in your world, people should be limited to where they can live to enable them to pay more of their taxes to people who - for whatever season - are not working?
Can you not see that workers may get a little irked in the face of such entitlement?
Asking workers to downgrade their lifestyle to enable non-workers to upgrade theirs is never going to be a vote winner.

They're not taking money away from anyone?

I can understand where you are coming from with your specific situation, because you don’t get alot for your money. But in my part of the country a band F house is a sizeable property! More like a 5/6 bed with alot of land, so yes I do think it’s fair. I do also think they should be cutting benefits as well though as we have way too many claimants. Benefits should be reserved only for those who will never be able to work due to disability and for those in temporary financial hardship. It shouldn’t be a way of life, which unfortunately for many it is.

The op won’t be near the west end in a 2.5 bed house at that price. It’s too expensive

If you can't afford to live in London - don't live in London.

Why should people with debilitating ADHD lose out because you want to be nearer the West End?

Thanks. I think it's accurate to say that more births than deaths, as people are living far longer in recent decades, is a factor. This is despite the fact that fertility rates are decreasing both in the UK and in the majority of the world. This factor isn't likely to continue though, as the boomers/older GenXs die and we are left with smaller, younger groups, who are still having less babies.
The main factor since the 1990s has still been immigration.

I wouldn't say that the change in the shape of the population graph is due purely to immigration. The smaller base of the pyramid is due to people having less babies. This presents a major problem for governments who want all the expenses covered, as you say and for it to look as if GDP is growing, hence lots of immigration.

Okay. Perhaps I should have said the chief thing rather than the only thing.
Net immigration to the UK is the main thing that has caused the population to increase since the 1990s. The fertility rate has been falling (babies per woman). People are having below replacement numbers of babies on average.
The other factor would be people living longer. It's inevitable that we see more deaths over the next few years/couple of decades as the large boomer populations leave us.
So it's not 'a complete lie' is it? I wonder what conclusions your fevered brain has jumped to but they say more about you than me.

Perhaps avoid Reddit.

Look at where you can save money rather then punching down on people with benefits. Your taking out a mortgage you can barely afford isn't the problem of others. Sort yourself out.

Your view that it is only immigration that has caused population growth, is a complete lie, and frankly says a lot about you, by saying that. Hth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zvtj4xs/revision/4#:~:text=Pages,total%20in%20that%20age%20group

this webpage gives the population in the ages, shown in population pyramid chart

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uks-changing-population/

this is the uk charts both previous and fot the future

dining - dying, sorry it autocorrected

Given that immigration is the only thing that has caused population growth and that people are having less and less babies

people having babies is a cause of population growth, whether the rate is 1.4 or 2.8 it is still population growth

a large boomer population born in the 1950s not dining at a rate in previous generations, is also holding the population growth

in previous generations we have had a pyramid shaped age of generations - so babies at the bottom with oldest at the peak - we now have a tube

by having immigration we end up with a tube with a fat tyre around the middle

this means that we don't have the expense of paying for the education and birth of the immigrants, but we do reap the rewards of them paying tax which in turn pays for the pensions of the elderly.

Which bit is 'misinformation', in your opinion exactly?

Sigh, more misinformation!

I know that single households have been increasing for various reasons.
I said that the average number per household has been static for the last 10 years and has turned down in the US so clearly there is something offsetting all the single person households. This is because of increasing economic pressures.
Projections are often very inaccurate.

Given that immigration is the only thing that has caused population growth and that people are having less and less babies, I think that's a fair interpretation.
It is about supply and demand. Supply of housing. Demand does not mean the number of people. It means the number of people who want AND can afford the property. That is directly related to bank credit and incomes as I said. See what happens when credit starts to contract.

@Overthemhills , yesterday when I posted, perhaps thoughtlessly, I was not advocating eugenics. I was concerned about who would be the advocate for your daughter when you aren't around to fight her corner anymore. I apologise for any offence but none was intended. But for the record, I do think that medical interventions and life prolongation are not always unmitigated successes.

Or a more effective approach to the housing issue is that
we stop building masses of mainly 3,4 and 5 beds
and build more 1 and 2 beds to actually reflect on the actual needs of our demographics

The increase in single person households of working age people is on and has been on the increase for some time and is predicted to continue increasing

The number of working-age people living alone has nearly tripled since 1971, from 1 million to 3.5 million

A much greater proportion of working-age adults now live alone compared to the past, even though the number of multi-adult households has remained stable.

Projections show that one-person households overall are expected to increase by nearly 20% by 2032.

While multi-family households are a very small proportion, they have been the fastest-growing household type over the last few decades.

Why-
-People are less likely to be living with a partner and are waiting until later in life to do so.
-Increased economic independence for women has contributed to greater autonomy in living arrangements.
-A larger proportion of single people are now living alone, rather than with parents, friends, or roommates.
-The number of couples who live together without being married or in a civil partnership has increased, which contributes to the overall trend of changing family structures.

I said population growth.

You interpreted that to mean immigration.

Anyway, it's all about supply and demand.
A big house can be converted into flats.