If you're really fed up of all "your" money going to benefits ....

Absolutely. All that "Well people on benefits are getting £££, they must be rolling in it" nonsense.

Their landlords are getting most of that state money, while the claimants themselves are still struggling to make ends meet. Because of high property prices, people who wouldn't normally consider claiming/ be eligible for benefits are having to do so.

I completely agree, OP.

This budget is a missed opportunity. I want a government that takes responsibility for the country’s long-term welfare and is willing to make difficult decisions.

I’d gladly pay more income tax if it meant genuine reform of the welfare system. I want to see real investment in social housing. I don’t believe that simply giving more money to people who won’t use it responsibly will lift their children out of poverty, but investing in Sure Start programmes, early-years support, and education would.

Because the benefits of those investments wouldn’t show up for years, it’s easier for the government to hand out short-term cash and hope for goodwill at the next election. Well, they’ve lost my vote for being ineffective and unwilling to take real action.

I think the problem with what you've said is that the property value would decrease.

Unless lots of people are selling at the same time. The property value wouldn't necessarily decrease.

And then it's who buys the property.

More likely a big corporation will buy it, maybe someone who is looking for a home. But unlikely council's have enough money for the number of houses needed.

Children are not pets that we acquire for own amusement or entertainment. They are the next generation of people, vital and necessary.
We need to incentivize people to have children if we are to avoid population collapse.

I don't know much about economics but if rent was regulated, decreasing the value of property and that property was being sold of then couldn't it be bought by the government and they can continue to provide low cost housing ?

Children are not pets that we acquire for own amusement or entertainment. They are the next generation of people, vital and necessary.
We need to incentivize people to have children if we are to avoid population collapse.

I'm not convinced about that, tbh.

I need to downsize, and really need something on one level. The service and maintenance charges on a lot of flats are so high that I'd be better off spending a bit more and getting a bungalow.

One flat had charges of £4.5k pa. At first, I thought I was looking at a sheltered housing flat, but it wasn't. Plenty had charges iro £3k and more.

Why not save your anger for those responsible for high property prices? They're the ones responsible for all of us suffering- just in different ways. Punching down isn't going to improve your situation.

Yes! Too many people having kids they can’t afford and then needing bigger houses which they can’t afford.
A family of 3 can get a 2 bed flat for example which is much cheaper to run and bills would be cheaper etc.

We really need to be campaigning for more council homes. One of the biggest payouts is housing benefit because of the extortionate private rent costs.

That single mum topping up with UC to bring her to over 100k? (supposedly) Wouldn't happen if her rent wasn't >£2000pcm for a 1 bed flat.

Build a 3 bed house for £300,000 (presumably less with large contracts). Charge £500 rent, they'd make the money back in 50 years even without increases. And houses last more than 50 years!

I know I've read several comments over the years from people saying this. RTB was the worst etc. So why hasn't it happened? Upfront cost. It would cost the government a hell of a lot upfront, despite the astronomical gain further down the line. But if they're not in power when the gains start to show, they get none of the glory. And that's what it boils down to. Elected governments only want something they can boast about within their term. Who cares if it benefits the country in the long run? If it doesn't benefit them short term, it doesn't matter.

Same with education. Better funding will result in more people in work, out of poverty and out of crime in 20 years time. It's the best use of money possible! But no.

SEN funding. Early intervention can prevent children getting to crisis point and keep the gap from widening so they have a chance of staying in school, getting qualifications and contributing to society in the future. Not funding SEN effectively is pretty much cutting off a section of society and forcing them to spend their lives on benefits. Funding could give them a chance. But no.

How many health conditions could be improved by early treatment so people don't end up out of work and incapacitated on benefits?

You've got to spend money to make money...

Or people take more responsibility for their own lives.

We really need to be campaigning for more council homes. One of the biggest payouts is housing benefit because of the extortionate private rent costs.

That single mum topping up with UC to bring her to over 100k? (supposedly) Wouldn't happen if her rent wasn't >£2000pcm for a 1 bed flat.

Build a 3 bed house for £300,000 (presumably less with large contracts). Charge £500 rent, they'd make the money back in 50 years even without increases. And houses last more than 50 years!

I know I've read several comments over the years from people saying this. RTB was the worst etc. So why hasn't it happened? Upfront cost. It would cost the government a hell of a lot upfront, despite the astronomical gain further down the line. But if they're not in power when the gains start to show, they get none of the glory. And that's what it boils down to. Elected governments only want something they can boast about within their term. Who cares if it benefits the country in the long run? If it doesn't benefit them short term, it doesn't matter.

Same with education. Better funding will result in more people in work, out of poverty and out of crime in 20 years time. It's the best use of money possible! But no.

SEN funding. Early intervention can prevent children getting to crisis point and keep the gap from widening so they have a chance of staying in school, getting qualifications and contributing to society in the future. Not funding SEN effectively is pretty much cutting off a section of society and forcing them to spend their lives on benefits. Funding could give them a chance. But no.

How many health conditions could be improved by early treatment so people don't end up out of work and incapacitated on benefits?

You've got to spend money to make money...

People putting children into poverty are their parents. Having more than two kids and then claiming poverty is nobody’s fault but the people engaging in this utter recklessness. Why should other people take their hard earned money from their own kids to give those people who make bad decisions after bad decisions.

As posted above.

If people aren't getting a return or if there is too much regulation then they will just sell and use other investments.

Which again just reduces properties available to rent and increases competition for rentals.

Also you're just left with the huge corporations that let properties and the problems that come with them. Again they will only do it of there is a profit for them.

Council doesnt have enough properties to house everyone who needs it.

Did putting kids into poverty over the last fourteen years lower our overall tax bill?

Or have the long-term costs of children being raised in poverty actually meant we were all worse off in the long run?

Why not save your anger for those responsible for high property prices? They're the ones responsible for all of us suffering- just in different ways. Punching down isn't going to improve your situation.

So it's not true that people are claiming say £900 per month in housing allowance ?

In the next 25 years our government will be paying people to have kids

Ok so here's a scenario for you.

A nice respectable married couple have four kids living in private rented accommodation. He works in retail on a low salary, she works in a care home on minimum wage. They manage without professional child care by working different shifts so one is available when the kids aren't at school or using nursery free hours.

Then Dad is hit by a car while walking to work. He's killed. He doesn't have life insurance. She has to reduce her hours as she has no help with child care, then she gets fired for taking too much time off work because the kids are struggling with school due to bereavement.

She's left claiming benefits.

Does she feed and clothe two children adequately and drop the other two off at the workhouse because she can't afford to feed them or should she scrimp on care so all four suffer?

Benefits are a safety net for people in difficult times. Yes some people are drug addicts, drunks, or just plain feckless but we shouldn't plunge innocent children into poverty because a bad parent might spend the money badly. We should prop up the decent people (not just for the benefit of the children but because it is also good for the economy) and then look at how we deal with the problem families as a separate issue.