To love the idea of scrapping all benefits and just giving everyone £500 a month

[DyslexicScientist]

Like Finland are going to do.

Would get rid of all the east that goes on with means testing and would cost about the same.

Would be much fairer as the current system does discriminate against certain demographics.

Rents need to be regulated. It's the only answer.

that's an odd solution to overcrowding and a housing shortage.

There isn't a lack of housing in practice. The issue is that many more people live alone in big houses or as a couple in a big house. As the number of people doing this increases, so we need more houses.

Dawn I've said several times I'd give extra money to people unable to work long term.

I do think this would help many disabled people as some can work on some days, but wouldn't as it messes up their benefits. Like my friend with hiv, who couldn't keep a job as kept getting ill. So has been stuck in a benefits trap.

It wouldn't stop them getting ill though would it? Or make employers willing/able to give the flexibility needed.

DLA/pip aren't means tested anyway so working wouldn't impact those benefits.

I can't get PIP. But I am only well enough to work about 6 months a year. CI would be much better for me. Severely disabled people can rarely work anyway unless they have a specialised skill.

so many people are fixed on the £500- thats the amount they will use in a different country

its not meant as a full replacement for every payment made to people. think of the admin for all the means tested benefits people receive- get rid of it all and use still receive that help those saving to help people who need it. if you are currently earning a six figure salary, you will be taxed more and will see no difference. if you are badly disabled and require extensive help, you will still receive that help but instead of lots of form filing for various benefits, you just receive it with no admin

I have no family aside from DS. He is totally blind, no speech, uses pads, needs help and guidance constantly. The only way I could work is if there is free childcare. If I had to hand my DS to Social Services to look after full time so I could work at another place other than home and not see my DS etc Beachy Head for us.

I am his Carer he is seventeen.

I do work as DS carer and save the Government thousands of pounds per month by DS being at home with me his Mother.

your situation wouldnt change solebizzz other than you have less paperwork

People love this idea but I would think it would lead to greater inequality. In Scotland universal free University education has lead to a) less bursaries for students from poor backgrounds b) a drop in investment in the university sector that will probably slowly reduce the status of the Scottish universities over time. Same with free prescriptions for everyone, money goes to people who don't need it instead of being targeted at the vulnerable. I understand the idea of universal benefits costing less than the cost of managing targeted benefits but in Scotland it hasn't really worked.

How would their be less paperwork though? You would still need to fill in the forms to show a need for the disability benefits. They are just going to start handing them out to anyone who says they need it!

If you vary the amount in any way, you then need the admin, so no savings.

If you give enough for anyone in any circumstances to live on, you shift the admin to the tax side.

How would it work for disabled children? Do children get £500 a month? or are they to be treated as nt children i.e. parents each getting £500 so dont need any more? What if you had more than one disabled child? these issues alone would make it unworkable and probably unfair on the disabled.

We need to sort out the housing cost before anything else. Can be done . Rent control. Is the way to go .

There isn't a lack of housing in practice. The issue is that many more people live alone in big houses or as a couple in a big house. As the number of people doing this increases, so we need more houses.

only by some marxist definition does that mean there isn't a lack of housing. Unless we start just confiscating property left right and centre, you've neither identified the problem nor a solution.

There is by any reasonable assessment a chronic and severe lack of housing, coupled with lots of unoccupied dwellings.

Rent control. Is the way to go.

high rents aren't the problem. they are a symptom of the problem.

We need to stop people btl. Luckily the tides have turned on that. All thus fresh delicious printed money is helping the people the borrowed / risked too much and funked up the economy in the first place.

How will stopping btl help those people who can't afford to buy or won't get a mortgage (whatever the prices) or don't want to buy e.g. temporary move? There isn't enough social housing for all the people that need rented accomodation so if you cut off private sector supply where do they go?

You can't just label private sector landlords as a bad thing when there isn't enough socially owned accomodation available to meet the need. The issue is the wider lack of housing supply in places where people want to live including a lack of social housing.

Btl is and has pushed up prices. Bang.

Yes, it has pushed up prices to an extent in an environment where housing stock is insufficient to meet demand. However, you haven't answered what will happen to those people who need to rent privately due to a lack of social housing? Not everyone can get a mortgage, not everyone wants to move permanently and not everyone earns enough to buy a property in the S East even if prices halved (especially with the affordability checks on mortgages).

BTW you do realise that the changes to BTL interest relief don't apply to larger corporate landlords don't you?

House prices soared as BTL mortgages soared in numbers. Private rents used to be cheaper than mortgages, but everyone with BTL mortgages wanted to cover the cost of their mortgage through rent.

There's been more than just changes to interest relief that affect btl, you do know. Boom.

Dyslexic
Why are you posting "boom" and "bang" comments in what was a serious discussion?

Instead why don't you answer the question of where rental properties are going to come from for those people who can't get or don't want a mortgage? Even if house prices halve the properties will still be unaffordable for many to buy under the new mortgage affordability criteria.

It's pointless, those who rely on benefits to live can't live off it so will still need additional benefits and those that don't need it, don't need it so it is a waste of money. It might also make a lot of part time workers (esp parents) give up work as it is just enough to not need to anymore.

I'm saying boom when I total a one dimensional argument with a simple statement.

Where will rental property's go more like?

Dyslexic
The fact that you think it is a one dimensional argument shows how little you understand.

BOOM!