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?!

lostlight, I hear you

Just because an area is wealthy it does not mean those people in it on very low incomes are not needy.

I of course didn't say that. What we are doing is giving people who are plainly not needed, extra resources to live where they would like to live. living where you want to live is not a need.

One court decision said Milton Keynes was beyond the pale and too far (!) even though plenty of those who claim no housing benefit and commute into London have to endure it.

that's plain ridiculous. I know of people who commute from MK and farther.

If their income allows them to claim the HB then they quite plainly need it as it will be with in the amounts the gov uses to define financial need.

Out of interest how could someone on NMW be expected to afford to commute from Milton keynes to zone 1 in London?

If their income allows them to claim the HB then they quite plainly need it as it will be with in the amounts the gov uses to define financial need.

they quite plainly need it to live in an expensive area. they don't need it to live.

Out of interest how could someone on NMW be expected to afford to commute from Milton keynes to zone 1 in London?

it'd be cheaper to subsidise transport than housing. or, if companies can't find workers to come and work for the NMW, what will they do?

it'd be cheaper to subsidise transport than housing. or, if companies can't find workers to come and work for the NMW, what will they do?

And, herein lies the golden ticket. Let Central London businesses bear the cost of London-based labour, they certainly reap the rewards of London-based customers. Why are we subsidising what has become the refuge of minor and major oligarchs?

It is quite likely that someone entitled to HB in Kensington would also be entitled to get it in swanage.

It is quite likely that someone entitled to HB in Kensington would also be entitled to get it in swanage

doesn't that mean that either they aren't getting enough in south kensington and can't come anywhere near affording to live there, or they are getting too much in swanage?

No. It means that they are getting the help they are financially entitled to inside of the LHA and benefit cap. No matter what area they live in

And, herein lies the golden ticket. Let Central London businesses bear the cost of London-based labour, they certainly reap the rewards of London-based customers. Why are we subsidising what has become the refuge of minor and major oligarchs?

How much would you suggest say tesco or Costa or the average nursery pays their staff per hour to make sure they can afford to commute from Milton keynes?

Agreed OP. Tax credits saved me at a desperate time. I'm now earning good money and paying it all back as a higher rate tax payer. This is a travesty.

No. It means that they are getting the help they are financially entitled to inside of the LHA and benefit cap. No matter what area they live in

I may have misinterpreted you. You didn't say they will get the same amount, just that they would get something in both cases. ok.

so why do we want to do this in the most expensive borough when there are much cheaper places? At the cost of not housing someone else there?

How much would you suggest say tesco or Costa or the average nursery pays their staff per hour to make sure they can afford to commute from Milton keynes?

well, off peak return is 13, so 2 extra per hour per 8 hour shift.

So the solution to ridiculous house prices in Central London is to take all the locals who've lived and paid into the area for years, force them to move to Milton Keynes so that they can then travel at unsociable hours (which is what off-peak would be - evening peak doesn't end till 7pm and morning peak starts at 6:30am ), put their kids in childcare for twelve hours a day to cover commuting plus work times, and get slightly above minimum wage?

And all because some people feel jealous?

I know someone who works out there and commutes in to London but it's certainly not for minimum wage and he has a stay at home partner.

Redstrawberry, I wasn't telling you anything patronising about Eastern Europe - did you mean to respond to someone else?

BTW I don't have a flat in South Ken. I'm not sure where anyone got that.

"R (Nzolameso) v Westminster CC [2014] EWHC 409 (Admin)
3 February 2014
The council accepted that it owed the homeless claimant the main housing duty under Housing Act 1996 section 193. It made temporary accommodation available to her in Milton Keynes. She refused that offer and the council treated its duty as ended. On review, the council concluded that the offered accommodation had been suitable. The county court dismissed an appeal. The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to bring a second appeal on the basis that the council could not show that it was not ‘reasonably practicable’ to house the claimant in its area. While that application awaited determination, she applied to the council to exercise its discretion to accommodate her pending the Court of Appeal’s decision. When it refused, she sought a judicial review. The High Court granted permission for the claim but dismissed it. The council had been entitled to take account of its legal advice about lack of prospects for success in the appeal and had not reached an irrational decision."

I think people like red need to take a long hard look at themselves. For a number of reasons. The idea that people are poor by choice or as a result of feckless behaviour on their own part is nothing but liberal bigotry, and a complete failure to recognise the part that the economic system has played in both the lives of the poor and their own. Check your privilege, is all of your success just down to you or have you been fortunate in anyway? On the travel in to London rather than live there point? This is ridiculous, you may make your cleaner travel an hour and a half for your benevolent pay but I thoroughly disagree with it, I'm sure you think she's lucky to have you, but do.you pay her enough or did you go for the best price possible. We should not expect people to spend hours traveling for low wages and to uproot their lives because of jealousy whipped up because of the vested interests of the wealthy.

I'm also fascinated by the fact that so many on mums net know the intimate personal circumstances of their neighbours. The young men who smoke dope and love in Fulham on benefits must be either amazingly able to avoid benefit caps etc. I'm also amazed that so many people are aware of.long term unemployed people, who make up something like 2 % of all claimants. A figure of around 500,000 across the country. If the government were really bothered about the deficit it would chase the tax avoiders and tax wealth as well as earnings like many other countriea. Instead it.subsidies landowning, property speculation and the like....

You will not pay less tax if we cleanse the poor from London, you will not pay less tax it we stop all benefits. You buy into their rhetoric because of your bigotry not because of any civic duty and therefore you are below contempt.

Lurker, I've lived on my street for 6 years. Of course I know the patterns of each and every one of my neighbours.

I pay my cleaner £12/hr, FYI, and she has about 4 weeks paid holiday per year. 2 in summer, 2 at Xmas.

Lostlight xx

So the solution to ridiculous house prices in Central London is to take all the locals who've lived and paid into the area for years, force them to move to Milton Keynes so that they can then travel at unsociable hours (which is what off-peak would be - evening peak doesn't end till 7pm and morning peak starts at 6:30am ), put their kids in childcare for twelve hours a day to cover commuting plus work times, and get slightly above minimum wage?

You mean like everyone else who can't afford to live in the central zones of London? It's funny how you deride what other people are forced to do precisely because people like you are not.

Furthermore, that's only part of the solution. The other part is to build adequate housing in London (bring down rents) and to improve private tenants rights (probably slightly push up rents).

And all because some people feel jealous?

???? I would have thought the main point is to save public money, and to remove this unfair lottery system where a disproportionate amount of money goes to some people, pushing up rents further for other people.

Of course, with all this extra money, we could then properly support the disabled, and possibly lower tuition, and put more money into trades training. Lowering rent for everyone would give everyone more money, except BTL landlords and landowners. We could have grants for people like lostlight (whose situation sounds incredibly difficult) trying to retrain.

The problem is that welfare isn't any longer a temporary measure for people going through hard times (or even a permanent one for those who are permanently in need). It's part of the system to be in work and collect HB indefinitely because people expect to live in places they can't afford when cheaper places are available. And we wonder why state spending is out of control, while services are being cut.

I think people like red need to take a long hard look at themselves. For a number of reasons. The idea that people are poor by choice or as a result of feckless behaviour on their own part is nothing but liberal bigotry, and a complete failure to recognise the part that the economic system has played in both the lives of the poor and their own.

And I think people like you ought to read posts more thoroughly. I never once blamed the poor or called them feckless. Not once. They, like a lot of us, are victims of a dysfunctional housing system. I am proposing that we remove costly subsidies for BTLs (HB), and actually build houses so people like scifisam can move into central neighbourhoods once again like her/his parents did. People seem to think that some of us are just heartless people trying to chuck out the poor, but don't realize for every person we house in zone 1 at taxpayer expense, there is someone in MK (or the like) who would like to live in zone 1 and can't because we choose a different winner to our lottery. what about those people?

Despite your claims about "lost money" because social housing, in your opinion, could cost more, it's not social housing tenants that cost the exchequer a lot in housing benefit bills. Social housing keeps housing benefit bills lower than they would be if everyone were in private rentals.

You say that you know the difference between housing benefit and social housing and then write as if they were the same thing.

Housing Associations are third sector and taxed accordingly. They have no mortgages, guaranteed income, lower taxes, govt protection from losses, and a stock of housing given to them (usually by philanthropists) on the premise that they would use them to house people in need. If they turn into the equivalent of buy-to-letters trying to turn a profit then they are going against their charter and the basis on which they were given that now-expensive property in the first place. They would be making a profit on property that was given to them on the basis that profit was not a motive.

And no, not everyone who can't get social housing is forced to move to Milton Keynes, commute two hours to London for slightly above minimum wage (the "slightly above" part being to pay for travel costs) and pay for twelve hours' childcare per workday. I mean, they just aren't. That just does not happen.

It's not even part of the solution. You haven't thought things through well if you are defending it as a reasonable idea; I thought I was presenting your ideas in a daft way to give you a chance to clarify what you really mean, but no, you are actually defending it.

Building more housing and increasing rights for private tenants, yep, totally on board with that. You don't have to kick out social housing tenants to do that. We are not the enemy.

Are our only choices South Kensington or Milton Keynes?

scifisam you seem unwilling to accept that your housing situation (and I am the one who suggested you had a S.Ken flat. Is that not the case? You have a flat, you live in S.Ken...?) is a stroke of good fortune outside of the grasp of 99.99% of the UK population (maybe more). What's wrong with selling off the Zone 1-3 housing stock and using it to house 10 or 20 times more people then we do now?

Do you think a 45 min commute is too long? Do you think Putney is too far? Roehampton? You must feel really sorry for me, I commute an hour to work. So does my husband.

Despite your claims about "lost money" because social housing, in your opinion, could cost more, it's not social housing tenants that cost the exchequer a lot in housing benefit bills. Social housing keeps housing benefit bills lower than they would be if everyone were in private rentals.

those are state assets, and letting them out to people for below market rates is in opportunity cost. If the state did that with Tesco, i.e. rent them land for a lower rate than someone else was willing to pay, there would be outrage (and rightfully so). So, just because social housing is "paid off" doesn't mean that people there aren't preferentially subsidised. The state could (besides legal issues), let those at a higher rate and build more houses with the money.

The problem is that you include in "need" as "need to live in zone 1". that's not a "need"; that's a "want". a want that about 5 million people have.

And no, not everyone who can't get social housing is forced to move to Milton Keynes, commute two hours to London for slightly above minimum wage (the "slightly above" part being to pay for travel costs) and pay for twelve hours' childcare per workday. I mean, they just aren't. That just does not happen.

I am not sure what bubble you live in, but millions of people (literally) commute when they would rather not. I am not talking just about the poor, I am talking about everyone who would prefer to live more centrally but can't because of cost. if you don't think this describes millions of people, than you haven't read the news lately.

It's not even part of the solution.

then we don't agree on what the problem is. you possibly think the problem is that poor people are gentrified out of their neighbourhoods. That's a small part of the problem. The problem, as I see it, is that most of us millions of Londoners are subject to massive rent and property costs, and most of us are not benefiting from it, even owners. It's completely out of touch with reality. Doctors can't afford to live in central London. HB and social housing isn't going to solve that problem, as demonstrated by years and years of having it. In fact, it makes the problem worse (HB pushes up rents).

Bottlecap, no, I don't live in South Kensington. Why are you so sure of that?

Our only choices are not South Ken or Milton Keynes, and yeah, actually I'd be fine with moving to outer London and would if I could (I'm actually trying to!) A 45 minute commute is what a lot of people even in zones 1 or 2 do, anyway, unless they can walk to work. My commute, when I work, is longer than yours and still within central London.

I think an hour or so is reasonable time-wise, though an hour being squished into someone's armpit on the tube is far less pleasant than an hour with a seat or even just breathing room on the train, which is actually one of the reasons I'm trying to move - my particular tube line is extremely disabled-inaccessible and will be for a very long time because changing it would be too costly.

It's not me saying people should be moved to Milton Keynes. It's redstrawberry saying that's reasonable even for someone commuting to London for a minimum wage job.

Most of the talk in this thread has been of decanting expensive areas in London, and the thing is that changes from year to year. Twenty years ago my area would not have been an expensive area of London. Now it is. Even Walthamstow is getting there. Where do we stop? Roehampton is expensive so social housing tenants should also be moved out of there.

And yes, it's only a stroke of good fortune that I'm from my area although I do think it's worth pointing out that I have paid to live in this area for a long time - I have invested in this area. It's also only my good luck that I'm from the UK rather than the Ukraine but I'm not really willing to be sent there to balance things out either. I imagine the same goes for you.

Invested in the area how, out of interest?

I think an hour or so is reasonable time-wise,

the thing is, what you think is reasonable isn't worth anything. By that I mean I can't get housing within an hour of my work because "scifisam says it's reasonable". the rest of us are subject to high rents. That might mean a 1/2 hour commute, it might mean a 1.5 hour commute.

Of course MK isn't the only place.

and I too ask the question, how have you invested? do other people (private tenants) get to count living in an area as an investment?

we are all lucky to be living in the UK, and not Syria (forget the Ukraine). Not sure how that justifies any of this. You are saying that you are lucky to be from your area (true) and that justifies being continually supported their on tax payer money. We disagree on the second part.

I may have misinterpreted you. You didn't say they will get the same amount, just that they would get something in both cases. ok

Because of the benefit cap it is likely that the amounts received in both areas would not be wildly different obviously there may very well be differences due to the LHA but because the cap jumps in it would be quite unusual for the difference to be worthy of a rule change to prevent it happening.

Unless of course it was more about making a point than saving money