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?

wrt to maximum occupancies etc the councils would like to move these people, but there are usually priority famillies who take up every house now- in many areas anyway.

My friend who is being moved into a lovely new build house courtesy of HA- why? becuase her violent ex is due out of prison this month and wants to kill her and it s all tehy had to offer. ironically it's so far from her home town that she ahs to give up her job and claim HB.

We'd be considered a priority becuase the emergency accom isn;t suitable for the boy's SN.

Elderly and people in late pregnancy or with a child are considerd priority for a home but not usually an upgrade. I;ve worked with people with 5 children (at last one working parent) in a one bed house, and yes with people with 2 kids trying it on for a three bed. Such is life. You get all sorts.

I'd read a stat somewhere that most people on HB did work.

Two posts above Iggly

That'll teach me to post then read the thread

I have read and posted on many many threads such as this and have decided on this simple conclusion:

Everybody deserves the right to be able to work and earn enough to provide a comfortable home for them and their family.

Those who are unable to work deserve a comfortable home provided for by the state.

Nobody deserves to live in unsafe or insanitary or unhealthy conditions.

Opportunities to lift oneself to higher levels of comfort should be equal for the taking. It should be the individual's choice as to whether time away from children, etc. is a sacrifice one wishes to make for a better standard of living.

Those using those oportunities to earn at a level that takes them beyond necessary comfort should accept that part of their income must be taxed to provide for those who are not able to take up such opportunities.

If we all take an Equal Ops approach then the resentful high earners might not see the taxation issue as so unfair. I think we have to view the potential to earn good money as an opportunity given not a right.

Another point wrt to lazy feckers claiming HB and popping out baby after grubby baby - IMO there will always be a segment of society who are freeloaders - extremes of which are found at both ends of the income scale.

Thing is, I'd rather not work with them and I certainly wouldn't employ one. There are some people who aren't employable and possibly never will be. We don't want to send them to the workhouse - not fair on their DCs and other more deserving poor would get caught up in it, too.

Carrying a number of lumpen proles (snigger at myself coming over all Marxist) is a price we have to pay in order to maintain a civilised society in which people don't starve, or have to send their DCs out to work for Fagins.

You can't differentiate between feckless lazy sods and the deserving poor. Punish the lazy feckers too much and everyone else suffers. IMO.

I think we have to view the potential to earn good money as an opportunity given not a right.

That's bullshit tbh, when people are getting opportunities to be given free money in terms of house price inflation, inheritance, tax breaks then the opportunity to earn good money should be a right. In fact it is.

OP, I think YABU.

Presumably you don't live in London, given your rent. However, the simple fact is that basically any family with kids who gets their rent paid for by HB in London is better off than most of those in work.

For example, I used to live in Lndon. We never got HB - always just a few pounds above the cut-off points. We could not afford to live in London once we had 2 kids because we could not afford the rent. We moved out of London to Home Counties - OH now has 1.5 hour commute to work each way, so 3 hours a day.

Yes I discovered recently that if we still lived in London, and were entitled to housing benefit, we would now be entitled to £1600/month in rent - for a 3 bed house (we now have 3 kids). That's £19,200 in rent the govt would pay me to live there now, if we both gave up work tomorrow!

I know the area we lived in - £1600/month would get you a GORGEOUS house, in the catchment for the best schools - there's absolutely no way we could afford that out of our taxed wages now. It's equivalent to £28,800 salary taxed at basic rate!

So YABU - just because you personally may not be living in a property unaffordable to working people, more or less anyone claiming HB in London with kids, is.

That seems totally unacceptable to me. Living in London should be available to those in average jobs, not just the working or unworking 'poor' or the very rich. The reality is the middle classes were prices out of London a long time ago - high HB rates just cause landlords to put rates up across the board and make it more expensive for everyone.

Should add, I didn't live in Kensington & Chelsea or anywhere like that - this was dull Zone 3, end-of-tube line suburb.

"You can't differentiate between feckless lazy sods and the deserving poor. Punish the lazy feckers too much and everyone else suffers. IMO."

I think that's what is happening with the HB cuts.

No, standup maybe not a council house, and not a couple with one small child in a one bed flat. There is no real need there is there? That should be low priority for the housing department frankly.

But if they then go on to have another one or two children (which would be rather stupid of them under the circumstances) and over-crowding becomes a real issue then they are legally bound to find you larger accomodation - which is why we have these ludicrous situations where people who are not in work or on very low incomes go on to have four, five, six or more children in spite of their situation. They can use having more children as a way of moving up the housing ladder. And it is wrong.

Perhaps from now on there should be a limit to the size of house you can have if you do not pay your own rent/mortagage in full, and if you persist in making your sonditions over-crowded by having far more children that you cannot support or house, instead of being given more money and a bigger house you should have all subsequent children forcibly adopted at birth. I'm hoping this would be a strong deterrent rather than a crowd-control thing!

Not for people who have fully supported a large family whose circumstances then change due to redundancy or illness or whatever, but for daft, selfish people who refuse to take any responsibility for their own situation and continue to have lots of children in spite of it.

And no, I'm not joking, before you ask.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean fully? Do you mean that people benefit from money by doing nowt because their house doubles in value or their family leave them a small fortune? That doesn't happen to everybody - I'm guessing a minority. The house that inflates in price has to be paid for and maintained.

Clearly once you have made a degree of money then that money can make money itself. That is a situation a million miles away from a worrking poor person's dreams.

So, I still say that potential to earn large amounts of money (such as enough to buy a good house) is an opportunity not a right.

When you start talking about well paid jobs, higher skills and qualifications come into play and these things are dependent upon opportunity. Likewise, being a man who deflects responsibility for offspring whilst earning bucketloads is an opportunity and should not be a right.

The only 'right' related to earning should be to do so to the extent that one can pay to live, not to live like a king.

No I don't live in London. Granted do you think it is fair my benefit will be cut and that I will still be dependent on HB if I work?

housing in the UK IS hugely expensive, and also the smallest houses of anywhere in Europe. What most people are uncomfortable with is acknowledging that the UK is badly overcrowded.

If people want the govt to 'do something' about overcrowding & the cost of housing, the real solution is to limit family sizes. But no-one wants to do that (quite understandably). So, really, either we accept overcrowding & all the problems that go with it, or we have less children.

but then, a declining birth rate has its own problems anyway.

so what do we expect a govt to 'do'? limit the number of kids each of us have? insist that people live with multi-generation families (hard in small house)? falsely limit the cost of renting (which would see black market economies going up & actually make it harder to find rental property)?

there isn't a simple solution, and a govt can't just apply a blanket policy to fix things. nor can they afford the cost of investigating each situation making case-by-case decisions.

the 'joy' of capitalism (in theory) is that eventually, the market will find its place, that either people will find the money to rent, or the rent will come down. tinkering with that, actually creates more problems than it solves.

i am not, btw, a great supporter of capitalism, but the uk economy is based on it (with a bit of social care thrown in to confuse things), so we have to search for a solution within the system that exist.

granted, do you now earn over £28 800 though?

I do think there is a shitty no man's land between benefit cut off point and being able to earn enough to support oneself without being less well off inthe long run because of childcare costs, etc. We can't ignore the reality that many people close to the benefit cut off choose to not work rather than slog away, doing little parenting just to pay the childcarer in order to bring home same family money or even a little less. Beyond the pride or sanctimony it's a no brainer.

I agree living in London should be available to all, not just the very rich or very poor. What is making the HB claimants move going to do to solve that? How about affordable housing for all. Mixed communities, not ghettos.

Good post Kickangel.

Oh, Proles I wouldn't go that far. That would be mean, obviously.

Also if i moved out of London back to where I was brought up (where people do commute from) I could lower my rental by about £500 but my travel costs would be about £400-£500 per month.

So in that way the burden is shifted conveniently to the individual.

Of course some people move out because they perceive the lifestyle to be superior in the provincial towns/rural areas. That's one thing and you weigh up all the pros and cons.

But for those who actually like living in London and feel it's an OK place ot bring up children then really why should they be forced to move from average areas.

Not talking about the really posh parts of course.

I don't think London can be 'affordable for all' - demand and supply - London will always be in demand.

You are being very unreasonable; it is not fair for others to supplement properties that they cannot afford. My partner and I spent many years living in what were perceived as bad areas trying to save to get a better house; we also delayed having children until we could afford a suitable house.

I think finally we are seeing the balance redressed where benefits are a saftey net not a lifestyle choice.

sinceritylover but that's the problem isn't it? It's the people living in the hugely expensive parts (and in very large houses) that are costing their councils obscene amounts of money. And there really is no need for them to live there. If they are in work then anywhere in the city (as opposed to moving out to the suburbs) will still be reasonably accessible without too much extra cost, and if they are not working then it really doesn't matter where they are. There is certainly no justification to house them in parts of the country that 99% of relatively affluent people still could not afford!

standupandbecounted, I think it's hard for you that your benefit is being cut, and I sympathise, but think that in the long run the high levels of HB are 50% of the problem, rather than the solution.

As long as rates are kept high, landlords will keep rents high. If HB is lowered, landlords will have no choice but to lower rents - which not only saves the taxpayer money, but also means that as rents go down, the point at which you can afford your own rent without needing any help from HB comes ever nearer.

What we need, obviously, is more houses and lower rents. Ideally, I'd like to see a return to secure tenancies, and rent control.

But I think in practice, lowering the HB will act as a brake on rents, esp in the absence of large wage hikes.

FN like your take on my nickname

I suppose that a decision must be made based on what's reasonable - and as someone said earlier the people living in expensive mansions are few and far between.

The rental where I live for a modest boxy , small terrace house is £300 per week minimum.

The LHA for someone in my position is £240 per week as they base it on a two bed (it would be WW3 if mine were to share) and when ds1 reaches 16 it increases to £300

I have noticed moving even a bit further south the rentals are much the same and as my dcs ages are critical for schooling and the fact I live quite close to work means Im reluctant to move.

As I said I work full time (I have worked all my life since age 13) I earn a reasonable salary but do qualify for a tiny bit of hb.

I wished I could have bought after divorce but remaining equity was not enough to buy so decided to rent privately.

At time of separation I wanted to keep stability for dcs and also have a support network here of friends and a great childminder. That take time to build up and moving to a new area has always seemed a negative move for many reasons.

Oops! Slightly different!

kickassangel I'm not sure about the market finding it's place theory. House prices in my area are 10x the average salary and no one on a low salary can afford private rents without the assistance of housing benefit.The problem being that housing is in short supply and we are not building enough to meet demand. As long as this is the case prices are going to remain very high in comparison with wages.I think there is a very stong argument for initiatives to facillitate the building of a lot more homes.The cost of mortgage and rentals are pushing a lot of hardworking families into poverty.

The rental market is extremely unfair to families.You can be evicted at two months notice without reason. What does that do to children who are forced to move schools? Not good for educational attainment.This is the reason I believe more social housing should be built to provide security for low income families.There always has been people who can't get mortgages.