If you're really fed up of all "your" money going to benefits ....

[Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits]

We really need to be campaigning for more council homes. One of the biggest payouts is housing benefit because of the extortionate private rent costs.

That single mum topping up with UC to bring her to over 100k? (supposedly) Wouldn't happen if her rent wasn't >£2000pcm for a 1 bed flat.

Build a 3 bed house for £300,000 (presumably less with large contracts). Charge £500 rent, they'd make the money back in 50 years even without increases. And houses last more than 50 years!

I know I've read several comments over the years from people saying this. RTB was the worst etc. So why hasn't it happened? Upfront cost. It would cost the government a hell of a lot upfront, despite the astronomical gain further down the line. But if they're not in power when the gains start to show, they get none of the glory. And that's what it boils down to. Elected governments only want something they can boast about within their term. Who cares if it benefits the country in the long run? If it doesn't benefit them short term, it doesn't matter.

Same with education. Better funding will result in more people in work, out of poverty and out of crime in 20 years time. It's the best use of money possible! But no.

SEN funding. Early intervention can prevent children getting to crisis point and keep the gap from widening so they have a chance of staying in school, getting qualifications and contributing to society in the future. Not funding SEN effectively is pretty much cutting off a section of society and forcing them to spend their lives on benefits. Funding could give them a chance. But no.

How many health conditions could be improved by early treatment so people don't end up out of work and incapacitated on benefits?

You've got to spend money to make money...

THIS!

£2000 a month will be in an expensive part of the country. No way should hosing benefit be paying for expensive rentals. Housing in a lot of the north west will be under £1000 a month, they should be relocated there.

I completely get young people being angry. Not sure the anger is correct to be directed to the boomers/gen X though. I mean it's not like they caused the house prices to go up - that was down to all the immigration pushing up demand and people turning to btl when pensions became less reliable (decisions they had no part of making, just the govt)

I agree they were in the right place at the right time and were no doubt about it lucky in that respect and I completely understand the young wanting to direct their anger somewhere.

Out of interest what policies do you mean when you say they vote for policies that further impoverish the young. I'm generation X so just interested in what we can do to help the young more. So many problems today are caused by house prices being such a huge cost. It also worries me that UK's 'wealth' seems to be increasing house prices rather than anything new being created, invented, improved.

I don't think that moving every private renting family out of the SE to the NW of England is really the answer to rocketing rental costs.

'Other people's taxes' pay for lots of things though, including pensions for lots of people who don't need them.

In the long term, building council (or housing association) homes is cost neutral.

The money borrowed to build the homes is repaid from the rental income. Once it's paid off, most of that rental income can be used to build more homes (after deducting a bit for maintenance and management costs).

RTB fucked that right up, along with strict controls on councils borrowing money for capital projects.

Yes, because there's an unlimited supply of housing there.....[insert roll eyes symbol].

Those other countries pay much more tax than we do. Brits won't even pay the tax to keep children out of poverty,

Exactly this. There is so much ignorance about how benefits are paid to recipients. As you say, housing benefit, the largest slice of the pie, goes directly to landlords.

What we need is local authorities to stop giving planning permission to building contractors to build housing developments with the caveat that a % must be social housing and then doing absolutely nothing when the development is finished and the % has been reduced to absolute minimum. The contractors should be heavily fined and censured for not meeting the planning requirement and made to adjust the development accordingly. Instead, the councils just shrug and say 'oh well, it's done now.'

That's kind of my point though. Why didn't they repeal it in those 13years? Because of image. Politicians prime consideration should be the future of the country, not making themselves look good.

So where would the essential workers in low-paid roles in more expensive areas come from when they've all been shipped to Middlesborough or Preston?

I suppose they could be paid more to stay, but that would increase costs in all sorts of public services, where lots of jobs are low paid.

Away from their jobs?

And then what happens? The extra demand for housing will have landlords rubbing their hands with glee and rents will sky-rocket.

This is why we all need to push our MPs for PR, everyone's vote counts and the government then made up of proportions of the elected parties will have to reach consensus.
Nothings perfect, but what we have at the moment is definitely not democracy in the real sense.
At the very least, things like education, transport, NHS, energy need to be cross party agreed, it with our system that'll never happen.

We could transform social housing within a generation if the government put their minds to it. It required compusary purchase of undeveloped land at current use value plus a small premium. We did it after WW2 then decided landowners should get wealthier and changed the policy

Hate to be that person but most houses built today will not last more than 50 years.

Which is why we, as a country, need to stop the short term solutions (funded by tax rises) and look for long term solutions (national debt, yes, but will be recouped by lower benefits bills).

Ok so here's a scenario for you.

A nice respectable married couple have four kids living in private rented accommodation. He works in retail on a low salary, she works in a care home on minimum wage. They manage without professional child care by working different shifts so one is available when the kids aren't at school or using nursery free hours.

Then Dad is hit by a car while walking to work. He's killed. He doesn't have life insurance. She has to reduce her hours as she has no help with child care, then she gets fired for taking too much time off work because the kids are struggling with school due to bereavement.

She's left claiming benefits.

Does she feed and clothe two children adequately and drop the other two off at the workhouse because she can't afford to feed them or should she scrimp on care so all four suffer?

Benefits are a safety net for people in difficult times. Yes some people are drug addicts, drunks, or just plain feckless but we shouldn't plunge innocent children into poverty because a bad parent might spend the money badly. We should prop up the decent people (not just for the benefit of the children but because it is also good for the economy) and then look at how we deal with the problem families as a separate issue.

😂 Fair point!

But also a symptom of the current climate. Longevity is an after thought. What's the cheapest for a quick fix is the default, whereas the default needs to be what will be most cost effective/best in the long term.

I honestly think council housing was one of the greatest achievements for the working poor. My grandparents were livining in a literal privatley rented slum, it was cleared when they were in thier 40s. They were then housed in this warm dry place with a bathroom and no exploitation. They both worked full time thier whole lives.

Its breaks my heart how all that was lost due tto buy to let, but also mixing up worker and social housing (i do see a need for social housing but its a different concept I guess)

@Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits Obviously. Inflated house prices benefit no one except wealthy criminal bankers. That's why I support building a lot more homes, and a lot more council homes.

The average house really isn't supposed to cost anything more than £70k - £100k.

Yes but this kind of scenario must make up a very small proportion of the 4+ kids benefit claims.
I’d have thought some sort of application system would be better? And yes probably would cost to run and people would still take advantage but surely a better model.

But this is poor planning. A retail worker and a part time care assistant shouldn't have four children. Even if they can just about afford them. They have built in no contingency. And then have failed to get life insurance. Yes people will be angry at having to support the family if Dad can't. I suppose we will have to, but it won't be with good grace.

There are apparently more than 1m unoccupied/abandoned homes in England and 120000 odd in Wales. No need to rely on new builds entirely.

A large proportion of these existing homes could be subject to a compulsory purchase order, or simply repossessed if the owner/inheritor has not been present or traced within a 5 year period. They’d cost a bit - perhaps even a lot - to do up and make inhabitable but it would be cheaper and quicker than building from scratch - and stimulate the growth in trades such as plumbing, electrics and plastering etc. Appreciate many may be in areas where there are no jobs now, but just as many will likely not be - and then new home building can be focused on areas where there lots of jobs but no affordable housing.

Seems to me there’s a common misconception that if another country manages anything all countries can do the same thing. We don’t start in the same place and we are bound by different laws and cultures and habits and geography. Looking to other countries for ideas is great but it will not be possible to just drop their model in.

Countries who manage free childcare which is not done by relatives have high taxes, high trust and a level of acceptance of state involvement in private life that would horrify most UK citizens. And that has brought some problems of its own.