To think dh is winding me up when he says some people on benefits are getting £500 a week?

[angelos02]

I'm pretty sure he's talking bullocks? Otherwise why the fuck would anyone do a minimum wage job?

That article refers to between 2008 and 2010 that average rent fell by 5% bt the average HB payment rose by 3%, that doesn't show a correlation between HB and rent increases.

What it does show that as more people became eligible for HB during the recession, this is most likely caused by people who are in more expensive properties the higher limits of the benefits to help them as they became eligible due to redundancy.

It totally doesn't back you claims.

a housing association in this area bought out the local council housing stock for the grand total of £1. they then proceeded to put up the rent by the maximum legal amount every year. i was living in one of the properties then (i've since moved out) - in the space of a few years my rent went from £67 per week to £102 per week and the HB of those on it just kept going up to match. the HA was taking the piss and doing so safe in the knowledge the council they'd just had a load of housing stock off would pay.

i don't know how it has changed since the caps - i'm guessing either they slowed down rent increases or they're attempting evictions or people are just cutting their cloth ever thinner to meet the gap because there was a gap even when i was in there between HB and rent and the local council had also decided everyone should contribute a percentage towards council tax.

this was a HA, re: social housing, and they were totally exploiting tenants and the council. they must have slowed down rent increases by now ( a couple of years on) because they were virtually ending up as expensive as the private market even then.

It totally doesn't back you claims.

interesting, because my claim was (I will quote it for accuracy).

there were, however, studies that before 2011 that HB rose faster than people without HB.

certainly the part you quoted is consistent with my claim. but, the sentence in the article before the one you are talking about says

^The record over the past decade has been discouraging: rents paid by housing-benefit tenants have risen faster than the market as a whole.*

oddly, that seems to be exactly what I claimed.

oops. first, of course the stuff between the ^ and * should be italicised.

second, i just noticed when I quoted myself there is a grammatical error. it should read "rents paid by those receiving HB rose faster than those paid by people without".

but that should be clear.

"studies that before 2011 that HB rose faster than people without HB."

Which is totally not what the study showed, it showed that as rent in the private sector fell by 5%, HB went up by 3%

Now this is more likely to be because during the time frame considered, as i was a recession, more people became unemployed and eligible for HB, if they had been in properties above HB rent, then the level of HB would be paid at maximum, causing an overall increase in the % increase.

It also doesnt take into account the fact that far more HB tennants are social housing, so any increase in the rent for social housing would increase this too.

Also, to quote from an increase approximately 6 years ago, and to ignore the current trend is disingenuous.

"The record over the past decade has been discouraging: rents paid by housing-benefit tenants have risen faster than the market as a whole."

Which seeks to underline my point, if HB rose faster than private rent, therefore HB can't be a determinant of private rental prices, otherwise the entire market would have risen as a whole.

Your argument is essentially, when it goes up and market prices rise slower its the fault of housing benefit, when it goes down and the number of claimants falls, but rents rise, its the fault of housing benefit.

It defies logic.

and the fact that even whole housing associations were exploiting the fact they could put rent up by maximum percentages year on year and councils allowed it and just kept paying the difference?

i don't think caps in their current form are necessarily the answer but that certainly needed addressing and wasn't. for a HA HB is likely a far higher element of their rental income than the private sector (certainly where i live where every single private rental property you see refuses to take benefits) and they were exploiting it at least in one case. that HA by the way had taken over council housing stock in several areas of the country so we're talking a considerable increase in HB payments even from that one by taking properties virtually free from councils, on conditions they'd put in new kitchens or the like within five years, then pushing up rents massively knowing the councils who gave them the properties would pay for it.

I agree Honey badger.

Which is totally not what the study showed, it showed that as rent in the private sector fell by 5%, HB went up by 3%

that a different point about the study, which is entirely consistent with the point that HB rents rose faster than non-HB ones.

The record over the past decade has been discouraging: rents paid by housing-benefit tenants have risen faster than the market as a whole.

Which seeks to underline my point, if HB rose faster than private rent, therefore HB can't be a determinant of private rental prices, otherwise the entire market would have risen as a whole.

that's my point! the rental market did rise, but HB rents rose faster. that's what the sentence says, and that's what I claimed: that people receiving HB had rents rise faster than the market. that's the entire claim, and stated absolutely directly by the economist.

it makes complete sense. rents will rise faster if people are given more money to pay for it. Conversely, if there is a recession, rents should come down, or rent rises should be slower given other effects, as everyone has less money to pay for rent, but not if someone comes in and makes up the difference. What a windfall for landlords.

in any case, the full study isn't available there, so I am not sure how you can claim what the study says.

Your argument is essentially, when it goes up and market prices rise slower its the fault of housing benefit, when it goes down and the number of claimants falls, but rents rise, its the fault of housing benefit.

no, that's not essentially my argument given I can't understand what you are saying here.

Shame.

Although, I'd like to point to how accurate my calculations of HB were, The Guardian today came up with £9.3 bn as the total paid, which basically corresponds with my calculation of of 10% of the entire market rent take to be accurate, its 9.4 %.

Not enough to determine prices, or increases.

Sorry 11 percent.

Not enough to determine prices, or increases.

as repeated countless times, they don't determine the price. they are a factor. so, can you repeat, which study says 11 percent is too low to affect prices? because, frankly, I don't believe it. you are clearly at odds with at least one reasonably respected publication, so forgive me if I side with it rather than back of the envelope calculations.

also, the economist's estimate for the percentage of people receiving HB is much higher. likely because the distribution is not homogenous. the percentage of total money and percentage of recipients aren't the same.

O the study today which said 9.3 bn was incorrect? From the government's own data?

O the study today which said 9.3 bn was incorrect? From the government's own data?

did i say that? I said percentage of HB/total money does not necessarily equal percentage of households, private or otherwise, that receive HB (40% according to the economist of private rentals receive it).

Giving people free money creates inflation. Be it in housing, food or Tulip bulbs.
Whatever the solution, it is clear that there is a disconnect between working and purchase power.
I fear a tipping point has been reached, millions of people have realised it no longer pays to work.
Crucially, the Government realises this.
To defend the indefensible with corrupt statistics is wrong.

Giving people free money creates inflation. Be it in housing, food or Tulip bulbs.

everywhere except MN apparently.

Whatever the solution, it is clear that there is a disconnect between working and purchase power. I fear a tipping point has been reached, millions of people have realised it no longer pays to work.

of course there is. think about how long you would have to work to buy a one bed flat in London on minimum wage. or a couple of teachers looking for a place together. it's near impossible.

that's because places like London have had their property market turn from residence to outright speculative investments. the people are being screwed, and HB is a tiny little plaster over the problem that burning a hole in public finances.

When a persons house makes more per annum than their gainful employment then we clearly have a problem.
It is clear that so many people fear light being shone onto the benefit system. They have their position to defend, its admirable.
I can't help but feel that the snake is eating its own tail, sucking productive venture, rising through the classes.
A family should be able to support itself through work, why can't that be anymore. Is it greed or sloth?

Number of households is forefront from percentage of the size of the market, you measure the size in the amount in generates per year.

There is nothing wrong with my use of statistics.

There is something wrong with continually suggesting cutting hb as a way of making prices fall, it won't happen.

Number of households is forefront from percentage of the size of the market, you measure the size in the amount in generates per year.

that assumes that HB is even distributed. if 10% of the total private rental money is provided by the government that doesn't mean that 10% of households get it because it assumes HB is even distributed. We know some people get none, some get little, and some get the max.

so, no, you can't just assume they are the same. and pretty much every article you read about HB will tell you the number of households collecting it is much higher.

if you go back and read my post about HA's being given council stock and then putting up rents exponenentially by using the maximum allowable formula for rises year on year it may totally explain why HB recipients rents went up higher than non HB recipients. it may purely be down to these HAs practices and that ex council,now HA properties have a higher proportion of HB recipients as tenants.

social housing is not as cheap as it was anymore, HB goes up. HAs with supposed charitable status pushing up social rents knowing full well councils will pay.

seriously a rise from £67 per week to just over £100pw in a matter of a few years on a 2bed is not to be sniffed at. the local council's housing benefit bill would have been rocketing all thanks to the HA.

f you go back and read my post about HA's being given council stock and then putting up rents exponenentially by using the maximum allowable formula for rises year on year it may totally explain why HB recipients rents went up higher than non HB recipients. it may purely be down to these HAs practices and that ex council,now HA properties have a higher proportion of HB recipients as tenants.

the trouble is that people would go for HA properties if they had a better choice in the private market.

What many people like with HA properties and social housing is the security that comes with them. Unfortunately, there seems to be no political will, likely political creativity and knowledge, to extend these protections to private tenants.

The real key to solving the problem is reform of the entire market.

Fines for firms that land bank.

Removal of planing permission after 2 years so that they have to reapply.

Rent controls similar to Berlin/Germany.

Removal of council tax reductions on second homes.

Increased capital gains for second homes sales.

Then you might see benefits start to fall, if not they just as you said plaster the wound, cutting them just puts people in penury. The market is too skewed to the landlord and offers not enough protection for the tenant, or those hoping to enter.

Honey Badger........

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/nurses-and-teachers-living-in-affordable-housing-scheme-face-20-rent-rise-a3304431.html

was watching a benefit programme this week and the commentator said the DWP are now saying it is going to take 6yrs for the roll out of UC

imo cant see it ever being implemented what with all the set backs etc