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...

All of these people getting annoyed are the same people who will be annoyed if their house doesn't triple in value over the next few years and who will probably inherit a really expensive house that their parents paid a pittance for. Then they don't want other people getting their extortionate rent subsidised. Landlords just up the rent to what the threshold is to get the most money, and they make people live in shit holes.

😂 😂 what, all poor people should be relocated up north? Who is going to serve your coffee and clean your office? Idiot.

I find it crazy that taxes being spent on benefits is the thing people zero in on.

Our taxes go towards a huge amount of things, and benefits are a small proportion of this. What about all your tax that goes towards the criminal justice system and maintaining prisons? Personally I’m a lot more annoyed that my taxes need to be spent on the (mostly men!) people who break the law.

So instead of bitching about single mothers, maybe get angry about the amount of men committing serious crimes.

The narrative of single mothers being demonised is exactly that - a narrative.

There could be a cap to housing benefit to discourage poorer people living in cities

I worked on new build social housing for a council in London. They were originally going to be family houses with a social tenure - but because of Right to Buy they had to be changed to intermediate/ shared ownership. Otherwise all the time, effort, fees and construction cost we expended would have been wasted if they were then bought up and taken out of circulation for the social tenants who needed them. Right to Buy should be abolished in England as it has been in Scotland and Wales.

Wait actually, I think it is capped ?

Where the poor people work is? Cleaning, retail, hospitality, hospital, delivering packages. Who's going to all that if you clear the poor out of the cities?

Agree

We're part of the UK as well. Not just a dumping ground for people the South don't want.

We got our own issues. And house prices increasing. Don't need more upward pressure.

Sort your people where they are based rather than dumping your issues to a different part of the country.

Pensions for people who don't need them???

Are these the people who have paid into the pension scheme??

I guess pensions should only ve reserved for people who have never paid into the scheme- obviously they need it more 🙄

As per my p.p, Labour had 13 years in which to repeal,or modify RTB. But they chose not to.
Also worth remembering that at the time it was introduced, housing was considerably cheaper, compared to incomes.

Also, RTB had already been in effect to some extent. Around 10 years ago a dd bought an ex council home which had been bought by the previous owners in 1971, well before Thatcher.
She paid almost exactly 100 times what they did.

Yes, we had a good old nose on the Land Reg to find that out!

Nobody has 'paid in' to any 'scheme' regarding the state pension.

I completely agree.
I have a flat that I rent out (not out of choice I used to live there then had to move in with family in a different area due to a bereavement.) I am putting it on the market as soon as I can but there have been constant maintenance issues I have had to sort out first.
As a private landlord it has been horrendous. I make a loss every month then there are continual issues with the flat. It has caused me an unbelievable amount of stress. I just want rid of it but I can’t sell it until the issues are sorted.
I regularly read things about rich landlords but they must be those without a mortgage. I have a mortgage on the flat and it’s basically a nightmare and a money pit. I am desperately hoping to get the current issues sorted within the next 3 months and get it on the market. I will have to take out a loan to sell it.
Landlords have been hit hard by tax changes so mortgages are no longer considered an expense. So a lot of landlords will be making a loss unless they are mortgage free.
As a result most landlords will be desperate to sell and the houses for rent will end up just being owned by companies. So the rents will go up and up and up. So it’s a scary time to be renting. I hope lots more council houses are built so people can be offered secure, affordable housing.

If there end up being hardly any rentals due to the changes to how landlords are taxed etc then it is concerning where people are going to live.

I know my son will need to move around the country for various placements as he qualifies in his profession and I think if there is a shortage of flats to rent then he will just have to rent a room in someone’s house. I think more people will end up renting out any spare rooms so that will help the housing crisis.

The mother on the other thread who was taking home £6k per month (£3200 in benefits) was not down on her luck. She had three children as a single mother with a Brazilian father knowing she would be in this situation.

She's from the US, living in London.

Yes, I'd love to see how the rich folk cope with no cleaners, bus drivers, nurses, teachers, childminders, shop staff, and so on......

I think a tax on uninhabited homes would help too.

Id rather 8M£ a day was spent on giving our children decent homes, properly cooked (on site) school dinners, nursery places and cherished.
I do not want to spend £8M a day on random boat arrivals 34,000 this year the eyewatering costs are not mentioned but we cant do everything for everyone. Our children are our future they should be prioritised.

It is not free I pay for it in tax

Probably Jeremy Corbyn would have sorted this out

I'm a high earner and... what?

No just been working and paying their taxes and NI contributions- how🙄 dare they get paid a state pension.

Obviously people who didn't do that deserve pension payments more.

Excellent idea. Let's ship out all those minimum wage workers to cheaper parts of the country and the minted ones can fend for themselves. They don't need shops and whatnot do they?

The policy will be partly paid for by raising taxes on Britain’s gambling sector, is that also an issue for you?

The big issue for me is that CB should be based on household income.

There already is a cap. And that makes no sense, because cities are where jobs are, and a lot of poor people work, they just work in such low paid jobs that it needs to be topped up by benefits.

In addition to that, what about people in cities who are not poor, but just lost their job and need help until they find one? How does it makes sense for them to not be able to pay their rent, so they have to move out of cities, where there are very little jobs?

Think you missed the sarcasm - PP was implying that high earners have proportionally higher living costs and therefore not much more disposable income than anyone else and thus it seems egregious to tax them more on top (esp given they already also pay proportionally more tax).

Unless you want to pay more tax than you already do?