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 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.

Why? Why is it several markets? That's because of the silly two tier tenure system here. Private housing should have the same tenure system as social housing. While I said I don't think rental caps are the answer, making renting more attractive is part of the answer. give private tenants the same tenure as social tenants (not impossible, I have lived in places where this happens).

The broken answer here is more social housing, while keeping the dichotomized system, whereas better protections for private tenants and more housing should be the goal.

the whole thing about BTL is a red herring. making it harder for them may in fact push up rents. what BTL's do and charge is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

• EatShitDerek Tue 06-Jan-15 20:37:25

So not only is she a rich benefit claimant she is also fat and getting help from the NHS*
firstly, to avoid confusion I'll say, I have no problem with people using the NHS.
My wife works in the NHS
Compared to places like America it's crazy to think how much we take it for granted that it's just there and always will be...

but knowing people who work for the NHS, It's stories that are told about how people arrive at A&E etc, often by ambulance because they feel a bit sick. The reason that there are major emergencies currently declared by three hospital trusts isn't just that funding has been reduced.
It's that expectations are drastically increased.
Ambulances are called for non-emergency situations
A&E is visited for cuts and grazes that could be treated at home.

I have a friend who works for the ambulance service, you wouldn't believe it, but often people treat ambulances as if they are taxis, they know full well that they have a non-emergency situation, but don't want to drive themselves to the hospital as they don't want to pay for parking.

I've been told of ambulances being called because a person has a headache, or because someone ate too much pizza and had stomach cramps.

the NHS (of course) is there for everyone to use, it's a universal benefit, but you can't help but think that if a few people were a little more conservative with their use of the service that there would be (for example) lower waiting times, more money for cancer treatments and new drugs etc.

People abusing the service are not limited to those claiming other benefits.

While I said I don't think rental caps are the answer, making renting more attractive is part of the answer. give private tenants the same tenure as social tenants

Why not both? Worked until the mid-80s, when Thatcher decided to tamper.

kitty

You are absolutely allowed to have an opinion...as am I hence the bollocks comment

And I have never called bollocks on anybody else's life experience...but I don't believe your story in this case

And I don't think you are lying...I just don't think you had all the facts at the time.

Anyway, the idea of rent control is gaining popularity;

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/majority-of-public-in-favour-of-rent-controls-for-private-housing-9953666.html

kitty you don't sound very analytical.

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.

if you have a hotly contested good, it's scarcity will drive up prices. putting price controls on will just reduce the incentive to make more of the good. lots of places have tried this with disastrous effects. in the long term it can make the problem much worse.

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,

something doesn't make sense about this explanation. if units are empty, landlords should reduce their price, otherwise every month they are losing money. over a couple of years, that's a lot of money. it's possible, however, that your high street gets so little traffic that rent might really need to be rock bottom in order to survive and such low rent may not even cover the landlords' expenses. it could be that it's just not a good place to do business. suburban stores might be sucking all the business away.

Why not both? Worked until the mid-80s, when Thatcher decided to tamper.

did it really work? Was the country (or London) facing the same housing shortage?

something doesn't make sense about this explanation. if units are empty, landlords should reduce their price,
You'd think.
but they hold out in the hope of getting the higher rents.
Lowering the rent on one "retail unit" sets a market expectation.

Commercial rents don't work the same as private rents, the market is very strange. lots of the landlords involved outright own property (as a lot of high street retail spaces in market towns are what were family businesses) there is no money lost, (it's not like loans or mortgages are still being paid)

As it is the town has plenty of empty retail units, so there is clearly not a supply issue, according to council minutes plenty of people have applied for permission to open xyz shops, (granted) but pull out when they find that the landlords are greedy.

Saw this article about cancer survivors in the i newspaper today.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-survivors-can-cause-unmanageable-crisis-for-nhs-9959106.html?origin=internalSearch

something needs to be done about rents. my rent is 250 a week. council can house 2 familys for that.

Kitty we are adults. You are being childlike. You were fourteen when you went out with this chap. I don't discuss my finances with fourteen year olds, nor my illnesses. I daresay his mother didn't either.

why are people so bothered about what others get... oh they get benefits. they have a flat screen tv. sob sob. so bloody what

how am i being childlike? i am being accused of lying left right and center, and i'm saying it how it is, she did speak to me about her gastric band, my god she made the whole world aware of the bloody thing. maybe she did take out loans, but at the end of the day she shouldn't be able to pay for things like that, loans or no loans, fair enough have a tv, fair enough have an xbox, but all 3 kids don't need one each.

the only reason i got angry was the cancer comment. it is not something that you joke about.

Read properly before you get so angry and work on your comprehension skills.

Because Kitty you're believing everything the Daily Mail tells you to believe. Whether there was a need or not for those people to have a television each, it's not for you to judge. Her parenting is different from that of others, unless she is harming the children, it's not for you to judge. So she wanted to keep up with the jones', or just wanted her children to not look like their Mum was on benefits. So what. Trust me, she was in debt up to her eyeballs and is probably still paying to this day.

kitty why would it matter that she had a gastric band?

Evening all,
Well, now seems like as good a time as any to remind everyone of our Talk Guidelines?

kitty

I didn't call you a liar, I said you weren't in possession of all the facts...which at 14 I don't believe you were