To not understand how people can justify it

[ijustdontunderstand]

Okay, not a bun fight I just want to understand how those who vote Tory can think the cuts to disability benefits are OK.

This is NOT saying if you vote Tory you're a bad person, at all, I just want to understand. Will you vote them in again knowing?

Apple i agree Higher wages are desperately needed.

I suspect that housing benefit is more an employee subsidy than landlord subsidy.

both benefit.

Landlords benefit greatly from housing subsidies, its both an corporate profit subsidy and a landlord one.

so do certain tenants

Course, but significantly less than landlords IMO.

landlords get some percentage extra rent. tenants get to live in areas entirely unaffordable.

I think the winner is clear.

Yes, Landlords are the clearest winner. They receive thousands a month of taxpayer's money, have property to sell off at a huge profit and the tenant has nothing at the end of the day, a roof over the head, a basic human right. No one chooses to live in a shit tiny stinking flat for 2 grand a month. You do it so you can get to work.

Housing benefit replacing social housing is the biggest private-capital scam the world has ever seen.

Some of those tenants will be care workers and in very important service jobs.

.....still if some on here dont mind taking time off their well paid jobs to wipe their elderly relatives arse because the care worker cant afford to live there any more or cant afford to commute in who am i to argue.

You see it benefits those higher up the socio economic scale too.

"tenants get to live in areas entirely unaffordable."

No they get to live somehwere and have a roof over their head. No one goes round Kensington and says: "Oh do you know what I'd like to live here cause its convinient and naice, but I'm going to get the state to pay for it. "

People tend to have to live somewhere close enough to work or to already existing commitments to families and communities.

The argument of "entirely unaffordable areas" has always struck me as a bit of the green eyed monster, do you think rents would be lower if HB wasn't around? Do you think these properties would suddenly come on the market cheaper so you can snap them up?

Landlords get a great whack of money out of the state, and in London get an appreciating asset that they can sell at the end. They do really flipping well. As someone said above changing state owned housing for HB has been a great scam in favour of the wealthy.

Back to a previous point you made about Doctors not being able to afford housing in London, there are areas of London no one except multi millionaires can afford. There tend to be less expensive areas right next to them, please don't let your heart bleed to much. There are no Doctors commuting for low wages from Milton Keynes cause they can't a decent place to live in London.

No they get to live somehwere and have a roof over their head.

yes. somewhere otherwise unaffordable. do you dispute that?

People tend to have to live somewhere close enough to work or to already existing commitments to families and communities.

by your own admission, no doctors in Kensington, who have long hours and work late. this is so that potentially costa staff have a short commute.

do you think rents would be lower if HB wasn't around? Do you think these properties would suddenly come on the market cheaper so you can snap them up?
isn't it obvious? Of course they would be cheaper. That is patently obvious. There is no doubt they wouldn't be cheap enough for people who need HB pay to live there, so they would have to move to a cheaper area, just like everyone else who doesn't live in central London because they can't afford.

Landlords get a great whack of money out of the state, and in London get an appreciating asset that they can sell at the end. They do really flipping well. As someone said above changing state owned housing for HB has been a great scam in favour of the wealthy.

I 100% agree. So why do you support it? and who supports selling social housing? I certainly don't, at least not in the way it is done.

Back to a previous point you made about Doctors

you are being disingenuous if you think this is about doctors. it's not about doctors. About a lack of acknowledgement that rents are way too high. This may be coupled with the fact that wages are too low (I don't think so), but it's rent that's killing everyone. We know, however, why the government doesn't do anything about this. This benefits investors, but really hurts Londoners, and we know who politicians are for.

I don't support it, I think your trying to argue with me for arguments sake..

I support HB because there are lots of people who need it, and society needs these people to function.

The point about Doctors was in reply to yours, and I assure you there are Doctors both new and old living in Kensginton and Notting Hill.

Rents are too high because of S and D, rents are too high because we sold off all the social housing and didn't build any more. Something like 50 % of all the social housing sold is now in landlord hands.

"so they would have to move to a cheaper area, just like everyone else who doesn't live in central London because they can't afford."

Blah blah, rents wouldn't be any lower, in fact many many LL in London don't accept HB. The demand for these places would be just the same, and then jobs wouldn't get done, and the rents would be the same.

I think your trying to argue with me for arguments sake..

I think we genuinely disagree...

rents are too high because we sold off all the social housing and didn't build any more

interesting. That's not what the BofE governor said. He seemed to think the overall lack of supply was the problem.

Blah blah, rents wouldn't be any lower, in fact many many LL in London don't accept HB. The demand for these places would be just the same, and then jobs wouldn't get done, and the rents would be the same.

I guess the London property market is very special then. Tell me, are there a lot of other markets where the removal of a huge amount of cash (read: demand) doesn't translate into price falls?

Overall lack of supply would be compounded by the lack of availability of social housing no?

I think the London market has enough waiting entrants into it that it keeps prices high, the threat of others being able to take over the rent easily means that market prices are kept high HB or no. Its a basic economic principle.

A lot of social housing in London has been changed into smart private housing. In Putney houses that were once council houses can now change hands for close to a million. Central London new builds are often bought off plan by foreign investors. As the price of property rises and areas are gentrified, they become 'too good' for people on low wages who don't deserve to live there any more.

It's not a healthy trend for any city.

It's not a healthy trend for the economy either as house price inflation isn't based on real added value.

Overall lack of supply would be compounded by the lack of availability of social housing no?

of course. I mentioned supply. you mentioned social housing. supply can be addressed with both private and social housing. Given the scale of the problem, we should be throwing the kitchen sink at it.

the trouble with only social housing is that it doesn't help a huge part of the market. We need prices overall to come down.

Its a basic economic principle.

it is. I never said prices would become low. I said they would drop.

I don't understand this support for this two tier market here. The only people high prices benefit are investors. Long term residents are hurt. Social housing doesn't address the problem for middle income people. They will still be priced out.

It's not a healthy trend for any city.

I fully agree. The solution of massive building helps everyone. Why help just the poor?