AIBU to hate the line "why should people on housing benefit live in homes that working people can't afford?"

[standupandbecounted]

"Why should people on housing benefit live in houses that working people could not afford?"

I keep seeing this line being thrown about in the media. Along with stories about families, usually with an average of eight kids, claiming a shocking level of housing benefit.The government is going to cap housing benefit to prevent this. Reasonable, but not the whole story.
A a less publicised proposal is to drop the level of Local Housing Allowance(LHA) from the 50th centile to the 30th centile.Local housing allowance is currently set at the median-middle value- of private rents in your local area. In my area the LHA is nowhere near the proposed cap. The maximum I can claim for a 2 bedroom property (I have 2 kids) is 126.92 per week. For a three bedroom it is £150 per week. Shelter have estimate that the average loss for a for a two bedroom tenant in my area will be £12 per week.( I assume this is based on predicted rent levels)
Loss per area here

I am renting a two bedroom flat for myself and two children, aged 18 months and 5. There is no outdoor space, it is not large and not in an exclusive area. The soundproofing is poor and the tenants upstairs are fond of partying way into the early hours. Hardly luxury housing that working people can't afford. I believe this myth about HB claimants living in the best properties does not represent the reality for the majority of us. I have tried to find somewhere better but most landlords will not take HB or children. I have put my name down on the waiting list for council housing but have been awarded thr lowest priority level. I will never get one with that banding.

The thing that upsets me most is the "working people" bit, a lot of HB claimants ARE working people! Housing benefit is also available to people who don't earn enough to cover their rent. Most low income people cannot access council housing anymore. They are forced to rent on the private market, where rents are to high to be affordable on low incomes. This is the case in most areas, not just London.

So, AIBU to feel angry that people on housing benefit are being misrepresented and subjected to unfair cuts?

Nothing like housing associations, Fellatio, but great, big, for-profit corporations.

Who then spin the management of the properties off to other great, big, for-profit corporations.

Leases there are far more secure, too. Excepting if you can't afford whatever rent hike, then at the end of the twelve-months, you just renew your lease.

The corporation isn't like to just sell up, or tell you you have to move out so they can move their kid in.

The lease is binding on both sides - if a tenant breaks their lease they have to pay for it.

The tax structure is totally different there, too.

In general, you keep more of what you earn in exchange for having to pay for more services yourself.

There's no 'council tax'. What there is is property tax. If you're a renter, these are factored into your rent.

If you're a homeowner, you pay these.

These are based on teh value of your property.

Small government = small tax is the MO.

Individuals are responsible for their own taxes. Many do it themselves, others hire a company or accountant to do this. Usually, the tax doing company or accountant is in some part liable for any mistakes, too.

Everyone has to file a tax return by 15 April each year, or file for an extension (you need an excuse, too).

Things like interest that you paid on your mortgage or students loans, medical expenses beyond a certain amount, are tax deductible.

And many states also have a state income tax, which offsets what you are taxed by the federal government.

So a completely different system.

It's lazy of politicians here to use that system to pattern policies here. They need to use their damn BRAINS to come up with something that's appropriate for here.

Oh ok mama So if you have a mortgage over £200k do they not pay it at all, or just pay the first £200k? I didn't realise it was indefinite.

They are not putting their brains into the housing crisis at all.

But not many landlords will take children and certainly not many take HB claimants. (which I must emphasise again, as some other posters have, includes working people). So how can people say that paying less HB will make greedy landlords put down the rent? They will just only take people who can afford to pay the rent they ask.

Local Authorities do not pay "whatever is asked". Before these new rules there was/is already Local Housing Allowance, which differs according to area. Council will not pay above LHA. Before that, how much HB was payable was decided on an individual basis for private rentals.

a1b2. That is why i feel the HB cut is misguided. Many posters say they don't want to see claimants homeless or in hovels. As there is a shortage of rentals there will always be someone prepared to pay the rent if HB claimants can't. HB claimants may well be left homeless or restricted to dangerous and unhealthy homes.Some of the areas where rents are cheaper are areas of high unemployment,if they can't afford to commute this is defeating the whole object.

FWIW I don't agree with housing benefit.I think it is misguided to cut it when there is no affordable alternative in place.Deliver the social homes and do away with HB I say.

Yes standup, well said.

Now perhaps we will get some posters telling us of their long commute. I feel sorry if people have a long expensive commute. But expecting others to have to pay for a long commute that they cannot afford isn't going to make the complainant's commute any less, or their house cost less or make their house bigger.

a1b2, I think the idea is that they - landlords - might do this at first but there will be more of a shortage of people able to pay rent at the current levels, ultimatley forcing them to choose between lower rent and no rent at all.... Clearly there would be a crucial transition phase if the system were to change. It would be rough on property owners and renters alike, but agree with Mamatomany.. it's crucial to at least move towards an idea of emergency social housing, not the current system, which - from this thread - isn't working for ANYONE.

xposts. HB bill will be much lower if social homes provided. And many in work would be able to afford rent on social housing without HB. Social housing is non profit making rather than subsidised, as far as I know. It pays for itself eventually. However this coalition also wants to make social housing have "market rents". So more unaffordable housing.

Council houses should never have been sold or at least not with 40/50% discounts - And the only real long term solution is to build more

Just suppose the council houses hadn't been sold. What would be the current situation? Same people living in them or descendents of? Or do you think they'd have been turfed out for more "worthy" residents. You can't have it both ways you know.

gotabook. I am open as to whether people should get chance to buy council house. But crtainly it should only happen if a council house is built or bought to replace sold one.

Alpine - I think they should not have been sold with such high discounts 10% would have been a good incentive but not detrimental to the tax payer. The profits should have been ringfenced for further building of social housing stock.

I personally think social housing stock should be totally as to need - maybe 5 year tenancy's that are then reviwed by a community based board.

'That's a very socialist argument -that I should be forced to sell a house I worked hard to own because my oldest child has left home so now I have a spare bed room (although two of the children so I suppose perhaps it wouldn't be spare).

whilst that's a view I hold ( we have a friend in an 8 bed with swimming pool on his own, and no issue with it) socialist does not equal bad, just a different outlook.

'If Riven's DH didn't work she'd get her mortgage paid indefinitely up to £200k interest only, i've often wondered why her DH bothers working under the current scheme but am glad they do' same reason Dh does- becuase doing nothing all day is shit and isolating and destroys a good part of the point of being alive.

I think you should be allowed to keep the housing as long as you need a property that size. However if income improves contribute more in rent. This is because it gives children stability. It also builds communities. I do think you should move when you don't need the room sizes.Lifetime tenancies are nice, but not when there is a shortage of money and homes.

I'm very left wing on some suff - and very right wing on others - but that sort of socialisum brings out the Nah - if I cant do what I like with my money then I can't be bothered to earn it attitude in me.

'What would be the current situation? Same people living in them or descendents of?

Doesnt work that way.

For a start, we were raised in a CH that my aprents still occupy- one sister has a beautiful six bed home (owned), one has a smaller owned house, we're in private so you cannot assume peopel do not move on; we pay more of our rent than a CH would cost in rent.

And the lease has a very distince rule on inherited tenancies- you can only inherit if you have been resident there for over a decade. So if you have a level of SN that means you didn't move out, a wife who has been there from day one (when mum signed her lease they were in man's name only) or you have had a caring role for probably your parents over a decade, really. Basically only the people that the LHA would have to move straight into another CH anyway*. Everyone else gets ten days to ship out.

Which in itself seems reasonable to me although I think ten days isn;t long in the midst of bereavemnt to find another home- we get two months on our private lease.

*Mum would move into another smaller home if one were available but there are none where she is, she knows other people need the extra bedroom more but can't be personally blamed for council building policy). They ahd the money put aside for a retirement bungalow but the pension was lost amidt a lot of financial crap that wasn't their fault, sadly. Just shite luck combined with poor regulation of a very specific area of law.

Standup that law has changed now anyway, no new lifetime tenancies- probably a right decision, although I do think there should be moves to keep people in tehir communities (in appropriate sized hosues) as tearing people from the area has massive ramification in care costs etc. It should work really- couples in small houses moved into bigger homes as they ahve kids, and the older people with empty nests swapping back.

They can't do that on existing tenancies although there are lots of incentives available for tenants to downsize. I think it is right they have changed it, though I think the frequent 2 year reviews will act as a disincentive to take promotions etc. I;d do 5 years so people have some time to see benefits of their efforts / make the savings that moving costs in real terms before they have to go. After all if youa re offered a promotion 3 months before your review, and don;t have enough time to save for the deposit / moving costs it could be quite a tough call.

I do know Mum's council is also concerned about the otehr costs they will incur through 2 year reviews- simply put, Mum and her fellow residents all invest loads ini their houses- gardens, flooring, heating etc. You woudl IMO still do that if you ahd a 5 yaer tenure but 2 years? maybe not. You'd save it for the next place surely?

nd YY to rtise inr entwith income- does work with HB of course, but rents should be able to rise to market level.

Oh ok mama So if you have a mortgage over £200k do they not pay it at all, or just pay the first £200k? I didn't realise it was indefinite.

They would pay the first £200k and you'd have to find the rest, it's only indefinite for certain category's, income support, disability etc If you lost your job and went on JSA it would be paid for 2 years max.

Actually WRT council housing being inherited, I don't believe it happens often. One of my friends, when she was 18, lived with her mum in a council house. When her mum died she was told to get out because the house was only in her mum's name.

' If you lost your job and went on JSA it would be paid for 2 years max.

I think that's probably fair.

Actually we've just been told that arer's is now counted (may not be everywhere, not in England) so we lose the amount of my CA now. As CA is also taxable for TC's we lose from that too; but without CA we cannot get the disability summer club we rely on to cope (so we can do basic things such as shop, attend hospital appointments etc).

It seems we are now lsoing £80 to get £56 but if we get the £56 argh.

Protecting carers my arse! Luckily DH had a good meeting with someone yesterday and hopes to get mroe work from it, but it effectively stops the summer club being free as well- just subsidised. Getting it for 6 weeks ayear costs us £25 a week all year (shite that's more we pay than the NT club costs anyway- we pay £1300 in extra tax, NT club costs £ 0 for council one of £150 private!)