to think the budget of 13bn cuts maybe some good news

[agentEgypt]

Some changes to housing benefit to stop it pushing up all rents would be good.

Also I'd like to see some kind of land tax to replace council tax. Then all the overseas people that buy properties to leave empty would be hit. Also this could hit buy to letters and remove some of the unfair tax breaks that encourage it.

What would you like to see?

"It only helps those at the bottom"

Isn't that what it's supposed to do?

So to get at the BTL'ers, you're happy for those at the bottom to become homeless because they can no longer afford to pay the rent?

26Point2Miles If you are talking about pensioners means tested benefits like PC, HB CTB then you are wrong to say they are protected, they have to fulfil the same criteria that people of working age have to, go through the same hoops and show the need as working age people.

If you are talking about the basic state pension with no added means tested benefits to top it up then you are talking about 30 years of NIC contributions (AT LEAST) that is paid, not for the pensioners own pension but as a contribution to other peoples, based on the promise given to citizens by all governments that they in turn will get a contribution based pension entitlement of their own when its their turn.

If you are talking about universal benefits like bus passes and CWP, then as long as there is ROBUST and fair way of ensuring every single pensioner in the land is properly means tested and informed of their rights, so not ONE pensioner who needs it misses out, then yes it they could be means tested, but do we have the money and properly set up government departments with trained staff to actually do that?

My change has been tried?

They've announced plans to phase out HB and instead divert the money going into private landlords pockets into building millions of homes? No thought not

If I was in charge.

I wouldn't change the whole council tax system, it broadly seems to work, it's well understood etc.
the only change I'd make would be to stop council tax relief on empty properties.
I think this would be a "stimulous" to cut rents and get properties occupied.
it would also make buy to leave housing much less attractive.

I'd close some loopholes - where they exist without good reason, (e.g. it'd be difficult to close the VAT loop holes for businesses based in Jersey (where Amazon used to have a warehouse) are difficult to close, they are there for a reason (to help flower farmers) but are abused by multinationals (e.g. Amazon) to avoid paying VAT.

I'd change the law on tax evasion, making companies liable to pay their tax bills in the country where said sales are made, not where companies are head quartered, and making CEO and CFO staff personally liable to be charged and imprisoned, (staff at this level should know what is happening in their company. - weird and wacky tax avoiding schemes will have passed under their nose.)

I'd improve the systems used in paying benefits, this would tackle the 1bn over payment problem, (which either looses money or traps people with repayments that they can't manage!) and would help prevent fraud.

I'd make it more financially rewarding to "shop" people who don't declare all their earnings. or who genuinely "cheat" the benefits system, (like the cases with the woman claiming to be wheelchair found water skiing in florida etc.) or at the softer end of the scale start a campaign to show what taxes are actually used to pay and provide for, and attempt to change social attitudes towards defrauding the system.

none of those things are cuts. but would represent a massive reduction in costs to the state.

but in answer to your original question, no, I don't think that blindly and bluntly cutting anything will be "good" for anything,

Abolish MP's expenses. Anything they need for the job - stationery, rail season ticket, IT equipment etc should be administered centrally. Other costs like food well the rest of us have to pay for that out of our salary so should they.

Abolish the 2nd homes allowance. Have a central hostel for those whose constituencies are too far away to commute should they wish to stay near Parliament.

Get rid of subsidies to Houses of Parliament bars and restaurants. Make it all market rates or at least not for profit.

Housing Benefit pushes up rents? That's insulting. I've been homeless six months because I can't find a private rental in my city that is low enough for housing benefit to cover. The city I was born in and have grown up in. And now I can't even afford to live in because the housing benefit doesn't come anywhere near the shittiest of dumps.

They've announced plans to phase out HB and instead divert the money going into private landlords pockets into building millions of homes? No thought not

If you want housing benefit phased out altogether then where do you expect people on unemployment benefits or top up benefits due to low incomes to live?
Is a single person on £80 a week JSA supposed to pay full rent plus all the other associated housing costs and buy food without any housing benefit?
Or are you just suggesting that all poor people don't deserve housibg benefit and should be made homeless?

They can live in one of the millions of new homes built!

And how are they going to pay the rent on one of these new homes? And where do they live whilst they are waiting for one of these new homes to be built?

Owned by whom? AgentEgypt.

The low-paid won't be able to afford the rent in private rentals, if no HB.

Now, if you're proposing a massive social housing initiative, I might agree with you.

But fgs abolish Right to Buy. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

They'll be publically owned homes not built for profit so rent can be set at an appropriate rate and will be a quality home. Not some beach hut or tiny divided flat designed purely to hoover up HB.

I said phased.

The only one HB really helps is private landlords. I live somewhere with no HB and I can tell you, categorically, that the hundreds of homeless people, in a city of less than a million, would disagree.

HB isn't perfect but it does stop massive homelessness. And, BTW we have no HB, very little benefit provision for people out of work and/or disabled and our rents are very high and unaffordable. The argument that HB causes high rent is bullshit. Lack of housing and social disparity causes high rents.

The choice isn't HB or homeless!

There is another choice. Long term it doesn't help tenents.

People in social housing get HB though. Social housing isn't rent free so you would still have a HB bill, albeit a smaller one but with the costs of building millions of homes I can't see how any money will be saved.
You talk about phasing it in but whilst waiting for these new homes to be built I presume HB would still need to be paid because people need somewhere to live, so if you are paying the HB then where is this freed up money to build the new houses? Even being phased in slowly wouldn't work without a huge pot of cash coming from somewhere.

Most people on HB are working. If wages had kept in line with rents there'd be no need of a govt subsidy.

Not the only choice. Personally, I would deficit spend (like the autobahns in Germany were) to build a massive amount of new homes, paying people (not companies) to build them. This would boost the economy, bring up spending, mean more tax revenue and result in more social housing.

I would also start housing co-ops, work on addictions, education and mental health and disability so that more people had better health and could contribute more than they already do.

I would introduce PR so that the government reflected the people.

I would abolish the monarchy and take their stuff (since most was taken from people in the first place) so that we could have a tourism-friendly republic.

I would make non-resident parents pay for their children, at pain of prison. The maintenance would be paid by the government to the resident parent and them the NRP would owe the government and this would be chased, leaving the RP to not worry or be blamed.

I would also do a lot of other things. Probably a good job no one is offering the presidency of the new Republic of the United non-Kingdoms.

The main thing I take issue with is the pretence and disingenuity displayed by parties of all colors when they talk of wanting to "solve" the housing crisis. There's no political will to make housing more affordable. The government doesn't want to make BTL unattractive or reduce its profitability, because so many people have money tied up in "investment properties". The government doesn't want to build a million more homes so that everyone can afford one, because there's political gain in maintaining house prices as they are through [lack of] supply and [immense] demand.

I'd like to see proper toothed housing policy: sanctioning developers who bank land to push up prices; rent controls; requisitioning of empty property; redesignation of brownfield.

I. Can. Dream.

The choice isn't HB or homeless!

In very many cases the choice will be between HB and homelessness.

The vast majority of HB payments go to low income families, mostly working, who are stuck in high cost, insecure private renting. Owning your own home is out of the reach of many and there is not enough secure affordable social housing stock to go around. The HB budget lines the pockets of private landlords but it will be the tenants that suffer if it's cut when they have to choose between paying the shortfall or buying food. This IS the reality.

It's rent costs that affect HB payments NOT the other way around. Without proper rent controls and a prolonged and sustained building programme nothing will change

Rent control Neffi? Now you really are dreaming...

What is the other choice? Sit tight and wait to be evicted?

MrsTerryPratchett

A girl can dream...

Another homeless family here, almost six months now. Bidding on everything I'm eligible for and getting nowhere because there are no properties to bid on.

There is a development of 40 houses being built about 10 minutes from me. All of them for sale. In a deprived area. The last development they built locally still has two unsold properties - they went on sale almost 3 years ago.

It's a fucking disgrace.

I agree whiskwarrior, I've been in your position in the past. I hope you have a successful bid soon

"They'll be publically owned homes not built for profit so rent can be set at an appropriate rate and will be a quality home. Not some beach hut or tiny divided flat designed purely to hoover up HB."

So...ghettoes for poor people then?