if you voted for the Tories, you should feel personally responsible when you see homeless people on the streets ...

[aufaniae]

...once their policies start to bite.

They want to removing housing benefit for under 25s, many of whom have children. Just one of their policies which will drive people into homelessness.

I thought this was meant to be a civilised country. If the safety net is removed, many people including children will fall through it, some of them ending up on the streets.

How can anyone support that?

[does a little dance]

What makes me laugh, is that those taking the piss out of mw earners probably have a cleaner who gets mw.
Should your cleaner never have a family?

Disclaimer: have only read the OP.

What a silly one it is. Not that I voted for the Tories, but have they not backtracked on any of their promises e.g. the NHS? Did they say in their pre-election manifesto exactly what they would be doing to benefits? Of course they didn't. They duped an awful lot of voters. This reminds me of that idiotic poster who shall remain nameless who said she would never associate with anyone who had ever voted Tory because she would know instinctively without asking that they were a selfish arse and she is never friends with anyone like that.

If the claimant wasn't being given the benefit, then it wouldn't go to the landlord.

But it does, erm, go to the landlord eventually, no? Or are you saying that landlords who rent to housing benefit claimants (most of whom are in work) do so for free, out of the goodness of their hearts, perhaps?

I never vote therefore I can't be held responsible for Iraq or the Housing Benefit cuts.

U iz all nasty biatches with ur crazy voting skillz causing the world to collapse.

Don't vote then don't get blame!

I think the housing benefit bill would be reduced if it didn't have to pay for so many children to be housed.

Yeah, dammit, if it weren't for all of those pesky kids needing somewhere to live we'd be alright. You people are nuts.

Exactly wallison, what will be there thoughts if they saw a young family on the streets, maybe not now but in the future if these crazy plans go ahead.

Lets not forget what they are doing to our nhs aswell. Because in a few years i'm betting we will all be paying for our care.

Of course the housing benefit eventually goes to some BTL LLs, but not for nothing. These landlords are actually providing a service and somewhere for these claimants to live. It sounds like you expect them to do that for free!

The fact that HB ultimately goes to BTL LLs is irrelevant. They have a mortgage to pay, so the money actually goes back to the bank, and they do have a job to do as well. There aren't little fairies that come along when you are given a BTL mortgage that do all the work for you.

I think the fact that £6bn a year of public money is being spunked on propping up private property empires is entirely relevant. And if, like me, you want it to stop then the most obvious answer is rent controls. I note that you think the high housing benefit bill is a 'necessary evil'. In what way is it necessary? Who does it benefit?

I'm afraid I don't agree with the housing Benefits subsidies going to private landlords being irrelevant. They are distorting the market value of private rentals because of huge government subsidies. Especially in inner London.

But you are missing the point that a lot of landlords who have BTL mortgages can't accept HB claimants anyway.

The market value is high because BTL landlords have to pay back their mortgages and owner occupiers have to pay back their mortgages. House prices are high because of supply and demand. There are too many people that need too few houses, that is why vendors were able to charge so much for their properties in the past, it's why those who bought to let can charge high rent and have to charge high rent, and it's why landlords that don't have mortgages to pay off can charge more for their properties and make a profit.

If people who need a large amount of housing benefit didn't need quite so much housing benefit because they were only claiming enough for themselves, or they were claiming enough to house themselves and one child, then the HB bill would be lower. But instead, there are a lot of people claiming for themselves plus two, three or four children, and the other parent is claiming separately as well. That is not the fault of LLs.

If the government put in rent control, then LLs wouldn't be able to pay their mortgages, they would make a loss, the banks would make a loss, and the family that lived in the property would become homeless. How is that better?

Pumkin

Your comment about the cleaner is spot on. It will be interesting to see what happens in childcare too. Nannies, child minders with dcs will be expected to work min mage 35 hours. You can only be in one place at a time. The nursery near me employs all nursery nurses for less than 35 hours (all part time contracts), many of them have dcs as to the TA's in schools who won't be able to count holiday periods.

I'd like to know what percentage of privately owned London houses are rented with the rent being subsidised by the state. House prices would come tumbling down if landlords could not meet their mortgage payments from their rentals.

Outraged

There are thousands of empty houses, flats etc left decaying. Maybe they will become squats soon.
If rent is high due to BTl having to pay mortgages what about those who bought out right then, they have no mortgage but charge the same. Its extortion, preying on government and propping up the private sector. I wonder how many would refuse DS tennants if gov said we are only prepared to pay half of what you ask for?

Yes, they might Vivienne, and those landlords that tried to do something to provide for their retirement by working as a LL on top of their regular jobs will be screwed. While the people who have done nothing or next to nothing will be better off. In my mind, that is very unfair, but then I'm not a liberal socialist that think everyone should have everything handed on a plate. I think those who take risks and make extra effort should be able to expect the rewards of their work.

You make a good point More about nannies & childminder that have dc of their own-how can they possibly do 35 hr and look after dc all at the same time, especially if they cannot find 35hrs.
It is lunancy

Those who bought outright and charge the same do so because they can. A property is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and if someone is willing to pay, then the LL is doing nothing wrong by taking it. It's not preying on government at all. It's providing a service. Some people will pay their rent entirely out of their own earned wages, how is that preying on government?

Plenty of LLs already do refuse HB claimants, I'm not sure what you mean by DS tenants.

I can't remember the numbers but it's in the hundreds of thousands - I think around 200,000 or so. And actually talking of numbers mine was wrong - housing benefit actually costs £20bn a year. A lot of that goes to private landlords - £3.5bn of it goes to private landlords whose properties are deemed to be in poor condition. It's one of the biggest wealth transfer schemes we have in this country.

So 3.5 billion is going to the private sector, is the remaining 16.5 billion going back to the state/council/HAs?

Because if that figure is correct, it makes me even more baffled as to why private landlords get the blame for everything.

No, £3.5 bn goes to private landlords whose properties are deemed to be in poor condition - you know, mould, damp, leaks, rotten windows, infestations, that kind of thing.

Why is the money going to private landlords not going to build new houses. I am hardly what you would call a liberal socialist. But I cannot see the sense of government money going to prop up rents in the private sector. Labour had years to address this problem. They didn't. It got even worse under them.

vivenne-you do make a very good point, although thatcher started this housing shortage by selling off the houses, no goverment now or in the past has ever sorted the housing shortage out by building more homes.
More homes need to be built but neither conservative's, Labour nor the coalition have done a thing about it.

Oh, ok, my apologies.

I am aware that there are crooked LLs, as there are crooked tenants, but I don't know what the answer to that is. I imagine that there are some LLs that want to be able to improve their properties (it's not going to be much of an asset if its in disrepair) but they can't afford too on the rent they charge after they have paid their mortgage. The cost of repairs and maintenance has also risen dramatically, which is why council tenants are in such a lucky position.o

I would say that the answer to crooked landlords is to give back tenants security of tenure. Already landlords are under (minimal) repairing obligations but of course if a tenant tries to enforce them they can be out on their ear as the landlord doesn't have to have a reason to evict them. If tenants were safe from this kind of arbitrary eviction, then they would be able to enforce repairing obligations.

Vivienne I completely agree with you and pumpkin that we need more council houses. People always wibble on about the cost of building them, forgetting that a house is an appreciating asset. So if the state builds houses, then it owns that asset and can also collect rent from it. It's a win-win situation.

My rent for a one bed is £1,100 a month. Mould and damp is rife. I do my best to clear it but the landlord doesn't care much - why would he when he knows I've got a good deal there? Yep, the housing situation is lunacy