AIBU about Tax Credits cuts,

[Weathergames]

Commons back Osborne plan for tax credit cuts
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34260902

I don't claim anymore because I now earn enough to support myself - because I could work and progress my career as well as my life while being a single parent.

AIBU to think this is a total travesty and so many single parents are going to have their life's devastated by this - and what about people in domestic abuse situations who will now be more unable to leave?

Maybe I some benefits scrounger - but the tax credits enabled me to be a good parent and role model to my kids - without their feckless father affecting that .... AIBU?!

I wish we could televise David Cameron living off the minimum wage for a week with a family of two or even 4 children - and see how it feels and survives the experience!

That would be one GREAT TV documentary wouldn't it ladies!

He really does make me sick.

A week wouldn't be long enough. Six months to a year perhaps. That's long enough for something to break and need replacing like the oven say, or the kids losing a coat or needing new shoes.

The man and rest of his cabinet are all a set of wankers. As a pp said up thread the Torys have no idea how the majority of the country like.

I think the Tory's do know that people are suffering but they simply don't care.

hope you get your permanent council house soon ifnotnow x

redstrawberry10, I totally agree about making private rentals better for everyone. That doesn't mean that those of us in social housing should also be forced to move into the private sector before the changes you hope take place actually happen. It's not a race to the bottom.

Don't be jealous of people in social housing - that's what the landlords want from you! They want poorer people to fight amongst themselves instead of fighting for increased rights for us all.

FWIW, with affordable rents new social housing tenancies don't cost much less than private tenancies anyway. They're supposed to be capped at 80% of comparable private rents but the comparisons are done very strangely, not taking into account the lack of furniture or flooring or the fact that ex-social housing always rents out at a lower rate than housing that's always been private. I've seen "affordable rent" housing in a tower block advertised at £1,100 for a one-bedroom flat in Tower Hamlets and am genuinely baffled at how that's supposed to be 80% of the market rent when I see private lets for less than that on the same estate.

The only thing they have going for them is more secure tenancies, but even they are five years long. The other thing is that they actually accept housing benefit whereas a lot of private landlords don't. They're also adapted for disabilities if need be, but I assume you're not annoyed at social housing tenants for having homes they can reasonably access.

And I do think it counts that I and others were here long before it became expensive, in the sense that we didn't think "oh look, this place is posh! Let's move here! The state will pay!" We don't [i]intentionally[/i] cost the state more in rent - it went up while we were here, often - esp in East London - in a very short period of time.

Don't be jealous of people in social housing - that's what the landlords want from you! They want poorer people to fight amongst themselves instead of fighting for increased rights for us all.

Why shouldn't people be jealous? Social housing can be more desirable because of the protections, and not everyone can get it. You expect that AND people be happy with it?

I am not suggesting a race to the bottom. I am suggesting that private tenancies have the same protection as state ones (or much stronger than they are). I am American, and even in parts of America (though not everywhere) they have much much stronger tenants' rights than here.

The only thing they have going for them is more secure tenancies, but even they are five years long. The other thing is that they actually accept housing benefit whereas a lot of private landlords don't. They're also adapted for disabilities if need be, but I assume you're not annoyed at social housing tenants for having homes they can reasonably access.

so, 80% of the cost, much more secure tenancies, and they take HB, and that's a "just". sounds like a hell of a bargain. I of course have no objection to accessible living. Too bad that's being cut, on account of have such huge costs elsewhere.

And I do think it counts that I and others were here long before it became expensive, in the sense that we didn't think "oh look, this place is posh! Let's move here! The state will pay!" We don't [i]intentionally[/i] cost the state more in rent - it went up while we were here, often - esp in East London - in a very short period of time.

Why does it count? The reason I say it shouldn't is that others aren't subject to the same rules. If I want to live in your neighbourhood (likely central London expensive neighbourhood), I am simply not entitled to live there on state support like you are. why? Why this disparity? why should the state pay for you to live there, and not me, despite both of us wanting that? we can make this problem more extreme, though still realistic, in the case where you are not working and I work in your neighbourhood. In that case, despite the fact that you don't work, and I work in your neighbourhood, the state still pays for you to stay there and not me. That's madness, and breeds huge resentment.

What's not recognised in these arguments is that we are talking about a resource that is incredibly limited, and most people are subject to the market for the allocation of that resource. Just not social housing and HB tenants. In such a case, a win for you necessarily comes at a loss to me (or however else wants your place).

Why does it count? The reason I say it shouldn't is that others aren't subject to the same rules. If I want to live in your neighbourhood (likely central London expensive neighbourhood), I am simply not entitled to live there on state support like you are. why? Why this disparity? why should the state pay for you to live there, and not me, despite both of us wanting that? we can make this problem more extreme, though still realistic, in the case where you are not working and I work in your neighbourhood. In that case, despite the fact that you don't work, and I work in your neighbourhood, the state still pays for you to stay there and not me. That's madness, and breeds huge resentment.

Quite right. The value of keeping 'poor' people in Central London (and there is merit - I don't like the idea of London being a poor-person free zone) is simply outstripped by the good that could be done for all lower-income people in the South East by selling off the Zone 1-2-3 housing stock and building more housing in the outer boroughs. As it stands, social housing is a lottery that working Londoners are locked out of.

Let Starbucks et al struggle to find staff in Central London and be forced into increasing wages.

Quite right. The value of keeping 'poor' people in Central London (and there is merit - I don't like the idea of London being a poor-person free zone) is simply outstripped by the good that could be done for all lower-income people in the South East by selling off the Zone 1-2-3 housing stock and building more housing in the outer boroughs. As it stands, social housing is a lottery that working Londoners are locked out of.

I agree that there is merit to not keeping London poor free, but we can't spend as much on it as we are.

But I do also scoff that the poor should be able to access all things the wealthy can. Witness the recent remarks on "poor doors" in new builds. That's a perfectly reasonable solution to this problem.

But yes there are many ways to take the money saved from housing the poor in central London and helping the same people with it. how about grants for retraining? Lowering university tuition?

I've never in 30 years been able to live near work in Central London as my wages aren't high enough. It was the same 30 years ago yet my taxes ensure many of those who don't work at all do. My daughter gets very annoyed that she's out working 10 or 12 hour days and all the council tenants near her (Queen's Park) sleep in and then have late parties until the early hours because there is family after family choosing not to work.

I am simply not entitled to live there on state support like you are. why? Why this disparity? why should the state pay for you to live there, and not me

Because any financial state support is means tested. You could apply for HB as could I but our income means we wouldn't be eligible to actually get it.

You could also apply for SH as could I but due to hundreds and thousands of people with a greater priority than us and fewer means to rectify the situation themselves we would be unlikely to obtain a tenancy inside of our life time. You could apply in some area and not have to long a wait

Because any financial state support is means tested. You could apply for HB as could I but our income means we wouldn't be eligible to actually get it.

Means-tested support shouldn't leave someone in a better financial position than work, obviously. The value a of Central London social housing lifetime tenancy must be a seven-figure sum, i.e. a lottery ticket.

redstrawberry10, I totally agree about making private rentals better for everyone. That doesn't mean that those of us in social housing should also be forced to move into the private sector before the changes you hope take place actually happen. It's not a race to the bottom. ..Don't be jealous of people in social housing - that's what the landlords want from you! They want poorer people to fight amongst themselves instead of fighting for increased rights for us all.

THIS

I cant stand the attitude amongst some private renters that have the attitude that us in council / HA should have it as shit as them. how about campaign for better standards in private and more council houses to be built I had to delete someone off FB and out of my life recently, she was a friend I had had since I was five but she seemed to despise me for having a council house and constantly went on about it

Social housing is state owned and should be allocated on a fairer basis. Nobody entitled to a bigger home than they need. Nobody entitled to live in social housing when they earn above a certain amount. It's a state resource and belongs to everyone. No wonder there is such bad feeling about people who are living nicely while others struggle.

You could apply for HB as could I but our income means we wouldn't be eligible to actually get it.

so I can apply for HB in a borough in which I don't live? Can I just say that I want to live in South Kensington, you have to house me there?

I've never in 30 years been able to live near work in Central London as my wages aren't high enough. It was the same 30 years ago yet my taxes ensure many of those who don't work at all do. My daughter gets very annoyed that she's out working 10 or 12 hour days and all the council tenants near her (Queen's Park) sleep in and then have late parties until the early hours because there is family after family choosing not to work.

apparently, all you need to do is get on the phone and call the RB of Kensington and Chelsea and you're in.

You could also apply for SH as could I but due to hundreds and thousands of people with a greater priority than us and fewer means to rectify the situation themselves we would be unlikely to obtain a tenancy inside of our life time. You could apply in some area and not have to long a wait

that's my point. Supply is woefully behind demand, so it turns into a lottery system.

I cant stand the attitude amongst some private renters that have the attitude that us in council / HA should have it as shit as them. how about campaign for better standards in private and more council houses to be built

Yes, better standards for private tenants would be great. so would more council housing. So would more housing in general.

But we just had a general election and none of that was on the table, so we have a system that is critically undersupplied. What people here are advocating is that around 30% of people simply get the difference between their rent and what they can afford covered, and thereby displace people who would also like to live in the area but can't as there isn't enough housing.

Again, people are arguing as if there is an infinite supply of housing in London. If you give or subsidise someone to live there, you necessarily deny that right to someone else. How is that fair?

Nobody entitled to live in social housing when they earn above a certain amount.

what happens if you have two people, one gets social housing, and one falls just under the threshold for state help and simply can't afford to live in the same area. what should we do about that?

I think there is something to be said for selling off all the houses in the very expensive areas and building more houses on the outskirts. Otherwise you have this system where to live in certain areas you have to be either very rich or on benefit.

Otherwise you have this system where to live in certain areas you have to be either very rich or on benefit. Yes, I'd say that is a fair characterisation of Zone 1.

Yes all is peachy in the world of social housing

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/02/housing-association-residents-no-heating-family-mosaic

I think there's a good argument to only giving 'social housing' (vile phrase) to workers or, if it's adapted housing, the disabled/elderly. My terminally unemployed neighbours were given a council house despite already having a perfectly good private rental (and all their rent paid for them) - whilst people on low pay, who are needed in communities, can't find anywhere to live. If there is truly pressure on 'soial housing' then use it to get key workers and people on minimum wage into areas where they're needed (everywhere).

In many areas income is not a bar to obtaining social housing it may be a bar to obtaining it if applying as homeless but not if you are prepared to just sit and wait it out on the normal none homeless wait list.

red applying for HB does not get you a house and you have to have a house before you can obtain any. That should be quite obvious. You could move into the area you wish to then claim it,if your income allows you are able to obtain the portion of the LHA that you income entitles you to for the size of house you are allowed to live in.

So yes you could live in that area and obtain it just because you fancy living there. You may not get any assistance with obtaining a house if you are not homeless but if your means dictate that you could obtain LHA via HB then yes you will get it

Tax credits already have people not working more hours or at all or the second adult not working, if social housing was only given to benefit claimers then there would be even less incentive for them to bother.

Much fairer to have adapted properties for the disabled and let the rest of the properties to key workers but capped to a number of bedrooms. Incentives to work seem to be few and far between so this could be good for the economy.

If you had a 3 bedroom house in Kensington the maximum assistance you could get with your rent would be around the £353 per week mark, if the rent was more expensive than the local housing allowence then you would be paying it yourself.

The Government need to put a calculator on their website so people can work out how they will be effected, some of the newspapers have calculators for April 2016 but not the Government's, or am I missing something.
When I called the Tax Credit helpline the other day due to a problem I'm having, the person I spoke to didn't know anything about the changes for lone parents in April, the fact that the earning allowance is going down by nearly half, everyone seems to be in the dark, seven months a way!

There are no particular changes for lone parents, everyone will be affected.

Much fairer to have adapted properties for the disabled and let the rest of the properties to key workers but capped to a number of bedrooms.

This is ever so sensible. And consider of how this would improve the quality of key-service workers.