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...

I was idly trying to work out the other day how much banks have made in interest on individual houses since they were built. Literally so much money involved on buying and selling the same asset - more than likely each time a mortgage involved at an increased price.

We sold our rental a couple of years ago.

It wasn't worth it anymore.

Now we aren't classed as greedy landlords anymore.

But I do see more people complaining about higher rental costs and less places available to rent.🙄

There is a cap on HB. It's called the LHA.

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/

Benefits don’t cover expensive private rents. The amount you are entitled to is capped by local housing allowance rules. The rules restrict the rate based on how many bedrooms you need for the people in your family and the 30% centile of rents in the area.

I'd assume their bills would increase. It would cost more to employ a cleaner, waitress etc. So cost of services would increase etc

It’s not as tho the gambling tax is directly funnelled to the accounts of benefit claimants. We’re collecting gambling tax, great! There are a wide range of options as to how we spend it, most of which I think would be a better idea than removing the 2 child cap. I’d love to have a functioning CAMHS again for instance. That would be good wouldn’t it?

So it's not true that people are claiming say £900 per month in housing allowance ?

None of it because Labour's manifesto was apparently fully costed and the first budget filled the supposed black hole left by the Tories. The current mess is all Labour's own making.

Yes that would be good too. That doesn't mean removing the cap is wrong.

@Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits ,
”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.”

I have recently seen on another thread someone asking how their elderly, vulnerable mother was going to manage to pay an additional £2500.00 per year because the house she bought decades ago had become worth more than 2 million pounds. Mumsnet has an awful lot of politically left contributors and the lack of empathy for this lady’s predicament was typically harsh and unsympathetic with many posters suggesting that if she couldn’t afford it she should move.

I live in a relatively affluent part of the country close to London and as it happens rent out 7 one bedroom properties not one of the rents is in excess of £1250.00 per month. I can only imagine that a rent of more than £2000.00 per month for a one bedroom flat must be for a property in central London. You can commute to central London from where I live in 35 minutes. If our hard earned taxes are being used to house people in such expensive areas that has to stop because the exchequer can’t afford it. Surely if it is acceptable to suggest that an elderly, vulnerable person should be forced to move if they can’t afford to pay this new tax then it follows that there should be a cap on how much housing benefit your single mother gets and if that means she can’t live in an expensive area then so be it.
The money we are leaching in benefits in this country is a mill stone around our necks and needs addressing urgently but this useless government will never do so.

They are moving who pays for SEND from councils to the Department for Education, not increasing how much is spent. They plan to reform it too to improve outcomes and reduce costs. If they manage that, it won't impact other students as much. The 4.9% figure is if they keep the current system as is.

Sorry, double post!

There will surely be less and less places to rent and rental costs will be going up. Taxes for landlords are increasing all of the time, it's not a viable business for most people. Better to sell of properties and pay the capital gains tax.

It also seems wrong that you buy a property with your tax paid income, then you pay tax on the rental income, then you pay more tax when you sell, not surprising people don't see this as a good business model anymore.

Not at all. @Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits for Prime Minister! I agree with everything you say. The benefits I hugely object to are the ones that top up wages because wealthy companies are not paying people enough to live on. I think if any full time workers for major companies need extra money from the government in order to make ends meet, the government should claw that money back from the companies through tax before any shareholder profits or bonuses are handed out.

We are subsidising the super rich.

No OP - we need to be campaigning for fathers to pay for their children properly so that the single mum isn’t dependent on the state. Too many single parent families - it’s costing m the state a fortune

Just out of curiosity, I googled the LHA for Kensington and Chelsea (I presumed that would be the highest). £704.22 pw, not month, per week, for a 4 bed. £497.10 PW for a 3 bed. £412.86 for a 2 bed. And £331.39 for a 1 bed.

No, I mean the kid who 20 years ago would have got Sure Start help didn't five years ago, and that causes more problems down the line. Or the person who couldn't get medical help now has a more serious condition. There are certain aspects of government spending that take a long time to pay off. Some of those were cut under the Austerity.

We’ve passed the peak of the ladder curve, so you can make suggestions like this, but the current level of debt from three decades of profligate spending means that we can’t afford it. The more we borrow, the higher the interest on the debt we owe, the higher the repayments. The more we tax, the more the economy shrinks, the lower the tax take becomes. Tony Blair’s government was problematic in many ways, but was about right in tax. You need to give people an economic environment in which they can prosper and perceive the fruits of their hard work. We don’t have that at the moment and this budget makes it worse.

*Laffer

It's not a Torie/Labor blame. It's ALL governments being short-sighted. ALL governments should have the future of the country as their priority, not just a 5 year short term gain.

I think covid lockdowns had a bigger impact than cancelling Sure Start. The root cause of almost all the teenagers I work with is the harm done in 2020/2021.

Yeah, I get what you're saying but Labour's policy advisors should have considered all that in when advising them on their manifesto. Tax payers are funding a large number of civil servants to do jobs like these and it's increasingly clear they're either not fit for purpose or their advice is being ignored or worse, not understood.

No they technically haven't, and yet at the same time the government have a website where you are encouraged to check whether or not you've paid enough national insurance to qualify for the full state pension. So you can't really blame people for having that model in their heads.

I don't disagree, but to not invest in long term solutions is just going to make the future worse. Yes, national debt with higher interest rates doesn't look good but really, how much does it affect the average worker? Less than short term solutions, that's for sure.

All we're doing at the moment is increasing the problem for further down the line.

God, yeah, that is the cause of so many issues! Although the inflation it caused has increased the fiscal drag of frozen thresholds and increased government income. That about the only upside!