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?!

But we do that for so many different things Red, not just HB, HB in London doesn't even drive up the rents as proved above.

Okay shall we get rid of the Royals cause we pay through taxation to support them in positions that we can't afford?

Shall we effectively subsidising the extremely wealthy to live in London?

We support many pensioners with benefits too.

The list is endless.

You just pick on HB in London, and haven't offered a workable solution, even building more social housing would take some form of subsidy. Forcing those on HB to move to cheaper properties further out would mean transport and child care would need further subsidisation, all at about the same over all cost I'd reckon.

But its the "envy" of living in London that you are getting riled at.

Oh well, I live here, I back HB, oh and btw Zones 1-2 aren't all lovely, my area certainly wasn't till about 10 years ago or so.

HB in London doesn't even drive up the rents as proved above.

where? Pretty much everything i have read says the opposite.

Okay shall we get rid of the Royals cause we pay through taxation to support them in positions that we can't afford?

Please. Pretty please. I beg you, with due haste, let's get rid of them.

We support many pensioners with benefits too.

The tories love this demographic, and I wouldn't mind clawing back some of their icing as well. The bedroom tax doesn't work because it doesn't apply to this demographic, which is the only one where it will make a big difference. That's the misguided class/generational war of the tories for you.

Shall we effectively subsidising the extremely wealthy to live in London?

why should we do that?

I put a quote from a research paper that states that above.

We do effectively subsidise the wealthy to live in London through all sorts of tax breaks, non-dom, council tax rates etc etc.

Oh and just in, Osborne has basically condemned areas with low business rates to the bin.

What is this politicals of envy nonsense. It's nothing to do with envy. It's about people not being willing to subsidise high London rentals. Generous housing benefit actually is doing nothng to alleviate the problem of high London property and rent prices. But is making the whole problem much much worse. It's the only sensible option. Otherwise the prices will keep rising and soon only those on benefit will afford to rent or maybe Sultans.

So whats the solution?

Silly me, I thought the government was for the entire UK, not just the city-state of London.

That is very silly of you! London and nuclear families. The rest of us can get stuffed.

We do effectively subsidise the wealthy to live in London through all sorts of tax breaks, non-dom, council tax rates etc etc.

it's a false dichotomy though. It's not one or the other. Yes, let's tax non-doms properly. Let's raise council tax on empty properties. I am all for those things.

I put a quote from a research paper that states that above.

All I see is a guardian article where someone from the Chartered Institute of Housing claims to have shown this. I see no research article at all. And shame on the guardian (which, by the way, is one of my favourites). It's a shockingly poorly written and referenced article with a poll on it (I couldn't care less about the results of a poll).

actually, if you google "housing benefit pushing up rents" it appears all the top links claims it does. So it seems you posted the one supports your view.

Generous housing benefit actually is doing nothng to alleviate the problem of high London property and rent prices.

of course, why would it? I don't even think anyone thinks it does. All it solves is "the problem" that only the wealthy would live in central London.

The very first article contains the quote from a separate piece that I linked to:

Chartered Institute of Housing. Chief executive Grainia Long said: "We have shown that LHA does not push up rents and so it cannot be used to bring them down again. It is imperative that the government does all it can to tackle the high and unaffordable rents currently seen in the private rented sector, but this is not the way to do it and will cause more hardship in the process."

AINBU on this, infact HB doesn't cover market rate in lots of London boroughs.

right. They claim to have shown. Where?

And what about the mountain of other articles that claim otherwise?

www.bpf.org.uk/media/press-releases/new-report-challenges-assumptions-cutting-housing-benefit-will-drive-down-rents

More London specific data here:

www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/advice_and_benefits/welfare_reforms/lha_-_councils_response.aspx

So there is lots of evidence that it doesn't push up rent. In fact as the caps are now in place and HB doesn't meet market rate in many rents should be falling as people move out, but guess what they aren't.

Its just awful. Every time i see Osbourne and DC on TV i just wonder how they sleep at night.
I know someone who works for a local council, they have to find around 38 million cuts/ savings next few years and him and his colleagues are now worried for their jobs. He said its just so disheartening, they are trying to find more volunteers to run the libraries etc too.
Some of the press did a wonderful job for the tories by going on as if anyone not on a six figure salary were 'scroungers ' yet people still voted them in.
They want to make striking illegal. There is nowhere left to turn.
Not sure what will happen. But they dont care.

hmmmmm. Neither are research articles, and neither claim what you claim. The first press release claims that landlords are not raising rents specifically to take advantage of pre-determined benefits level, which is a very different claim (and, I still can't find the article, so as yet that claim doesn't seem to be supported). Incidentally, that article is from 2011, and from the BPF (British Property Federation). I don't think good argumentation is through ad hominem attacks, but certainly without the article I am likely to assume that they are not fighting for the right interests here.

The second is a council asking for evidence for the claim. Also, it "claims" that the cap has not caused rents to come down (of course, no one said it would. We don't know what the other affects are).

I've got the report PDF somewhere, it does work out.

So show me your evidence that it does, bet it comes from central govt or the tory press agian something with vested interests

The council also quote: "in summary, the LHA limits are having no impact on limiting rental inflation in Tower Hamlets which is now running way above CPI. The impact of this is being felt by non-working and working households alike and as a result homelessness is increasi"

Fairly convincing to me tbf. What vested interest does the council have in stating otherwise?

Fairly convincing to me tbf. What vested interest does the council have in stating otherwise?

what vested interest? to have caps raised or removed.

How is it convincing? We have no idea how the other factors come in to play. It's possible that rent would have gone up much faster without the cap.

you too can google. Basically every other article out there claims otherwise. And it's easy to see why. Suck 16B out of system and rents will come down. It's the same with QE. It's inflated the hell out of the stock market.

So, why would QE inflate the stock market, but HB not inflate rents?

The Toruies do not want to ban striking. There is a lot of mis-information about at present. People need to check everything.

As Osborne said on R4 today unless we can balance the books we cannot care for the less fortunate. That is the hard fact and it's what got the Tories elected for the next 5 years as the British public understand that.

Ah but I think Osborne is a great user of doublethink, we can't help the poor untill the economy is better, but we can cut taxes for the wealthy. We want to give more power and responsibilty to councils, but we will change how tax revenue is distributed s so that poorer areas will suffer and the more wealthy will benefit, we must cut the deficit to cut the debt, while simultaneously increasing the debt.

We must improve the NHS and schools, whilst cutting funding....

The soundbites sound nice, but the reality is very different.

Agreed lurker we have £96 billion to give business and companies grants and tax breaks (but us workers need to pull our belts in)

Breaking as discussed above, the £98bn is bollocks

Cutting the deficit does not reduce debt until the deficit is gone - you are arguing for faster, harder cuts.

In terms of cutting spending vs raising taxes, this paper, written by the Labour govt in 2009 shows that "spending restraint is more likely to generate lasting fiscal consolidation and better economic performance than tax increases"

Its not bollocks Carol, true and thought to be a conservative take on the matter.

15bn on HB country wide seems rather small, and can be taken up by direct grants, tax breaks etc etc etc..

In reality tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy have to be paid for by someone, and its going to be the poor. Churchill's quote above rings true.

fullfact.org/factchecks/13000_100000_millionaires_income_tax_cut-28795

If you reduce taxes for the better off you increase the tax take though, don't you? So it is a kind measure to help the poor although the left don't like to admit it.

Also never in English history have those who are well off paid such a high share of the tax burden. I feel taxed to the hilt and unappreciated for it.

Sorry evilcherub I mistakenly did not notice that in the example you used you had said 4 bedrooms. It's because I'm kind of stuck on the standard 3 bedroom as that is where the majority of private renters on LHA fall.

Any study that link HB to house rental prices is going to produce odd results because private renters do not recieve HB they recieve local housing allowence that whilst on paper does not appear to be a different thing it actually is. So to get an accurate idea of what impact these things have on private rental costs you need to look for impact of LHA on rental costs.

The amount of LHA is based on the lowest x% of market value rents in the area (I cannot remember the precise % because my head is not working ive had a hellish long day at work with a 5 hour commute each way today) it was done the way it was for a few reasons things like it not driving up rental costs and preventing people renting mansions.

Those of you who read the papers will remember those "lone parent on benefits living in swanky 40 bedroom castle" type articles well that's why they changed it.