To ask what's the beef with benefits?

[mytartanscarf]

Do people think they are too little? That they should be more?

There's always a lot of upset on here about them - about how wrong the government are and how awful life is on benefits. I've never been on benefits so obviously can't judge. But what are the solutions?

I suppose I am asking what should the government do?

I don't think anything will work except more social housing. Whether the government buy more existing property or build it.

Whether the government buy more existing property or build it.

if the government buys existing housing that won't help. we need more housing.

not just relabelling existing housing.

I think housing is a much more complex market than that written. In fact, it's several markets.

Housing stock won't actually evaporate in response to changes of tenure. Demand for private rentals isn't high because it's the preferred tenure. It's high because social stock is scarce and ownership increasingly difficult.

I wasn't suggesting either option alone. this is interesting

It seems to tick the boxes on all sides. Although as Arsenic says, it's definitely not simple.

Build homes, lots of them. Councils should do this

Yes!.

Changing the way competition works is tricky and doesn't always have the right effect. Becoming the competition is a better plan. You don't want the government to own all the houses, all the shops, banks or theatres, but they can guide and stabilise the market by being a significant part of it.

Councils could make it a long term investment. They could rent them at a profit to anyone. Tenants on benefits would still pay and to some extant the council would be paying themselves, but it wouldn't be going to LLs, who would eventually have to offer better prices or conditions to compete.

i know this is controversial, BUT i have seen first hand the kind of lifestyle SOME people on benefits have, and its not fair. a woman i know 'struggled' with back pain, couldn't sit and do an office job, yet could drive from norwich to cardiff and back (around 270 miles each way, so 540 miles in total) in a day for a simple football game without complaint. each of her 3 children had a large flat screen tv in their rooms, one boy having 2 in his room so when his mates came round they could play the xbox on separate tvs in the same room. all tvs had complete sky packages, all members of the family had the latest iphone, all had laptops and designer clothes. and in the kitchen, the cupboards were stuffed FULL of branded food...

now to me, that isn't fair, to have a luxurious life, that my family (who all work 6 days a week all day, and have done since 18) could never afford.

i don't disagree with people getting benefits, i disagree with the amount SOME of them get.

Well kittykat I expect the Daily Mail will be onto her soon...

kitty

I think that's the biggest load of bollocks I have read today

And I say that as someone who has just read the mail online

Written I am disabled as are two of my children. With carers we wouldn't all fit in one cab we would need two.

The problem with that kittykat7210 is that most of us here know it's rubbish.

Kitty have you not stopped to think about how most of that probably came from Brighthouse and/or Provident loans?

kitty do you really believe that that little lot was paid for with benefits?

Of course it wasn't. If they don't work and they have recently acquired all that, they are either borrowing, have inherited, or something shady is going on.

okay, i was going out with one of her sons, thats how i know, i was going out with him for 2 years, and was round there a lot, i never saw any evidence of loans, nor any mention of loans, it is not a load of bollocks thank you, and i am very pissed of that you think that.

no one died, so no inheritance, a lot they already had but in the two years i was going out with the son, she gave him the money for a new phone, bought the second tv for his brother, payed for a new laptop, she had money everywhere, shes a single mother with 3 kids, she's on disability allowance for her back, and housing benefit and other bits and pieces like that

What "evidence" of loans do you expect to see when visiting people's houses?

oh and she didn't have a job at all so she was definitely not working, and i was there almost every day, i'm pretty sure i would have heard something, she was always mentioning her benefits and i was there when she got her gastric band on the NHS and she said she couldnt lose weight by herself but i saw how much she ate! if she didnt eat so much she wouldnt be so big!

and many people will disagree with my last comment, but i've BEEN overweight, i've had an obese bmi, and i lost the weight by myself with diet, not even diet and exercise, i didnt exercise very much at all. so i am not having a go because she was overweight, but i think if she just took the time out of her 'busy day' to actually cook instead of getting takeaway every night and filling hr cupboards with biscuits, cakes and such then she wouldnt have needed the gastric band...

I'm sure you have a career as a Daily Mail journalist just there for the taking.

maybe i saw the minority, but its the only experience of benefits i have seen, and thats why in my original post i said i disagree with the amount that SOME people get, because she's not going to be the only one

oh whatever, i was just using her as an example, jesus christ, i thought people were allowed to express opinion.

it may be different now but when i knew her this is what i witnessed.

You don't want the government to own all the houses, all the shops, banks or theatres,
why not? the high street of the town I live in is dead, council meetings (minutes published online) show that the reason for this is that rent is too high, and that private landlords won't bring down rents, it's been a battle over many years of the council trying to improve the town centre where they can, but work going to waste because nobody can afford to rent retail units.
If the Local government owned the stock they could at least see problems and set the market rates accordingly.

Having a controlling figure in the rental market would help stop speculation.

Having an entirely free market approach to houses has led to runaway house prices,
this has the affect that only those extremely well of, very credit worth of investor groups can afford to buy houses.
and meant that the rental market has "boomed" - read those too poor to be approved for a mortgage get told that they couldn't possibly afford the minimum repayments, and that therefore they must go rent a place (at a price that's higher than the mortgage would have been!

when you think about it, if rental prices could be controlled or reduced, then less people would struggle, less people would be in debt, less people would need housing benefits, the benefits cost could therefore be better distributed.
(i.e it could be giving someone a reliable car rather than lining the pockets of an investment group that bought houses.)

those that appear to be saving a probably in as much debt, if not more than you.
whilst that may be possible, I can say that you could not service the minimum payments as well as rent, council tax, gas/electric water as well as food and anything else. (let alone have anything left to save!)