Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 9 10 11 12 13 14

Original poster

To think it won't be long before we have workhouses again?

333 replies

MrsTawdry · 02/02/2015 22:11

I really know very little about politics but I know that there's a proportion of people who love benefits bashing and love abusing those who receive housing benefit etc.

It occurred to me recently that one "answer" to the housing crisis might be a sort of "Housing Centre" ....basic blocks of flats sort of thing...where occupants lose a portion of their JSA in return for a roof...and from there it's a step to being given food vouchers as part of benefits and working on a voluntary basis....litter picking etc.

Could this happen? Could a government legislate and make this happen?

OP posts:

ConferencePear · 04/02/2015 14:13

I don't understand the posters on this thread who hate paying taxes to help the sick and needy and yet appear to quite content to pay taxes to subsidise employers who pay their workers too little to live on.
Whatever happened to the labourer being worthy of his/her hire ?

keepitsimple0 · 04/02/2015 14:22

Simple yes it does go well beyond. Because we don't...yet...live in a country where the poor don't matter.

just political rhetoric.

So you think it's fair that the country, 90% of whom themselves couldn't afford to live in central London, pay for other people to do so? Curious.

I think this is why the welfare state is losing support. People don't like to support people who are better off than themselves. There's a queue a mile long of people who would love to live in central London but can't afford to, yet are paying for others to do so.

RJnomore · 04/02/2015 17:32

It's a bloody shame to see how quickly all Thr work on integrated communities can be pulled apart.

It is REALLY IMPORTANT that less well off people are supported to live in more expensive areas. What is happening is a slow ghettoisation of the north, where those deemed less desirable (poorer) are being sent away. And there is less jobs, lower prices, a cycle of continuing deprivation that sets in. And people continue to whole heatedly buy into the same crap about why should they have what I can't have.

The answer is simple actually - reduce housing prices in the big metropolitan areas like london. How to implement it, not so simple. The answer is most definitely not driving out people under a certain wealth band. That's just a fast track to an even more elite class and a complete end to the limited social mobility we have had.

woodhill · 04/02/2015 18:13

potato very true, Marigold? is now in Death in Paradise I believe.

caroldecker · 04/02/2015 18:22

The problem is the existence of the minimum wage - should be abolished.

Original poster

MrsTawdry · 04/02/2015 19:46

Simple it's not the fault of the poor that the houses are expensive is it!! They're not the ones who've bloody pushed up the prices!!

OP posts:

keepitsimple0 · 04/02/2015 21:33

ghettoisation of the poor is a problem. I am not suggesting sending them to communities up north. I am suggesting that they don't live in westminster and south kensington because, like 95% of the country, they can't afford. There is a difference between saying they can't live in the most expensive part of the country, and saying the must live in the poorest.

indeed, that is the answer (lowering prices), and not subsidising people to live in expensive areas will help lower prices. You are removing the ability of many people to pay the rent, so rents will come down. It's unlikely that it will make a huge difference. I agree, that's not most of the problem.

it's not the fault of the poor that the houses are expensive is it!! They're not the ones who've bloody pushed up the prices!!

I never said it was. However, take for example home owners. If a home owner loses his job and can't afford the mortgage, he is forced to move. Should home owners also be shielded from moving?

Original poster

MrsTawdry · 04/02/2015 21:37

I never said it was. However, take for example home owners. If a home owner loses his job and can't afford the mortgage, he is forced to move. Should home owners also be shielded from moving? no but with enough good social housing he or she will have a nice new home to go to.

I am not suggesting sending them to communities up north. I am suggesting that they don't live in westminster and south kensington

That's laughable! You think ghettoisation is "a problem" but DON'T LET THE POOR LIVE IN KENSINGTON!!

OP posts:

keepitsimple0 · 04/02/2015 22:15

no but with enough good social housing he or she will have a nice new home to go to.

that's true for people who have to move on benefits.

Original poster

MrsTawdry · 04/02/2015 22:25

Simple What's your point?

OP posts:

keepitsimple0 · 04/02/2015 23:01

That's laughable! You think ghettoisation is "a problem" but DON'T LET THE POOR LIVE IN KENSINGTON!!

you must know the difference between not letting the poor live in Kensington, and not supporting them to live in Kensington. The distinction is pretty clear.

What's your point?

I am saying you want to afford the people on housing benefit privileges you aren't willing to extend to home owners.

caroldecker · 04/02/2015 23:13

Actually the poor have pushed up house prices indirectly. HB for private rents was set at 50% of average rents, so supporting BTL. Even now, they are set at 30%, so £290 a week for a 2 bed in Inner London.
This is £15,000 a year, supporting a £300,000 BTL investment at 5% annual return.
Using a 2% interest only mortgage, this is £450k

Original poster

MrsTawdry · 05/02/2015 09:20

*Simple no I am saying that all vulnerable people should be treated the same and well. That means unemployed, disabled or sick....if you've become unwell and cannot pay your mortgage any more then that's very sad for eg. but with a good benefit arrangement in place, you won't be desolate. I don't "want to afford the people on HB privelleges" that won't be extended to homeowners but the fact is this...if you can't pay the mortgage then you're not a home owner are you?

It would be upsetting....but there would be good arrangements in place. The state cannot pay people's mortgages!

OP posts:

Grumpyoldblonde · 05/02/2015 10:04

It would be upsetting....but there would be good arrangements in place. The state cannot pay people's mortgages!

Why not? for a while, with HB, if I were to have to give up my mortgaged house due to unemployment, I leave owing money to the bank and with nowhere to go. A great deal cheaper to give me housing benefit for 6 months towards my £400 mortgage while I try to get back on my feet than have to rehouse me and my child I would have thought. My house would get sold on to a landlord I have no doubt about that and there we are another home up for extortionate rent.

Original poster

MrsTawdry · 05/02/2015 10:12

Grumpy Well maybe for a while at least...perhaps they should given that people have paid in for years etc...it would probably save money in the long run wouldn't it? I don't have a mortgage...is there some sort of insurance available for people in case they get sick and can't pay? Maybe it should be mandatory to take that out...is it expensive I wonder?

OP posts:

Grumpyoldblonde · 05/02/2015 10:17

There is insurance and it is a good point - it is expensive with all kind of exclusions though, yes I think probably mortgage insurance for unemployment should maybe be mandatory. I am in a scary place right now tbh and the future bas gone from shiny to bleak overnight. I think a lot of posters think it could never happen to them, it could believe me and I take no pleasure in stating that

keepitsimple0 · 05/02/2015 10:32

Why not? for a while, with HB, if I were to have to give up my mortgaged house due to unemployment, I leave owing money to the bank and with nowhere to go.

I can't remember, but I do think there is some kind of temporary mortgage relief/help. Also, this is an odd case where banks are actually on your side. Apparently, they are willing to help.

In any case, I believe there is some help, on the order of a year or something.

Well maybe for a while at least...perhaps they should given that people have paid in for years etc...it would probably save money in the long run wouldn't it?

So, why shouldn't that be the case for HB tenants? I am all for that. If you have lost your job, or can't afford your place temporarily, sure let's give that person some help so they can stay put. But if you are going to need HB forever to live somewhere where no one else can afford, then I say stop it, and house them somewhere nearby that's much less expensive.

Just as you say for mortgage holders.

Grumpyoldblonde · 05/02/2015 10:35

I believe there can be discretionary help for mortgage interest\ but is discretionary and interest rates are very low it would be a drop in the ocean for most mortgage holders

SunnyBaudelaire · 05/02/2015 10:40

there is v little help for people with mortgages.
When I tried, you could only apply for it after being unwaged for at least six months.
The insurance policies are also useless.

Original poster

MrsTawdry · 05/02/2015 10:41

Well I suppose a mortgage holder can sell their home if they can't make the payments Simple and then they have capital. Those who 't own a home do not have that fallback do they?

OP posts:

Original poster

MrsTawdry · 05/02/2015 10:42

grumpy I'm sorry you're in a scary place :( Life can suddenly take a turn sometimes....are you in bad health? Have you got all the advice you need re your situation?

OP posts:

Grumpyoldblonde · 05/02/2015 10:44

Not if they don't have capital in the house, not everyone does. I am broken hearted at the thought I may lose everything I have worked 30 years for and bloody angry - at myself, the world, the government. I am getting worked up so will take it out on the kitchen floor for now!

Latara · 05/02/2015 10:48

Selling your home is sometimes pointless - for example my mortgage is quite low about £400 but renting in this area a 1 bed flat is at least £550 - and Housing Benefit for a single person is very low to help with that rent.

Plus to sell your home in the first place you have to pay for solicitors, estate agents etc.

SunnyBaudelaire · 05/02/2015 10:52

and if you do have any equity you would not be entitled to any benefits.....

Grumpyoldblonde · 05/02/2015 10:53

And if you are in negative equity you still owe that to the bank, my house would be £1500 to rent as well!

Flip

1 2 ··· 9 10 11 12 13 14

Swipe left for the next trending thread