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...

The government can't afford for house prices to fall.

They are causing them to go up.

Every single scheme that helps people who can't afford to buy a house without all the extra help the government is giving is just contributing to house price inflation.

It's not just the fact that the council houses were sold.

Cheap mortgages. Stamp duty changes. Right to buy. LISA. Mortgage

Reducing LTV requirements.

Banks increasing salary multiples to calculate amount to be loaned.

Increasing loan lengths etc.

These all inflate house prices.

Like I said before. They can't afford for house prices to fall. And they won't let them.

In covid when less houses are being sold and properties were on sale for ages and then prices were being reduced slightly, people were speculating house prices may fall significantly.

They made stamp duty changes and house sales boomed again.

I am no economist and terrible with numbers but I like to imagine slashing taxes and encouraging people to spend and buy would be good. I suppose then it's hard to retax after
L

So your answer to an out of control benefits system is to throw more public money at the problem?

We don’t have a housing crisis because there aren’t enough councils houses. We have a housing crisis because there aren’t enough homes full stop. Supply and demand.

The taxpayer does not need to spend any more money on this. There simply needs to be cheaper to build more homes to have more on the market and lower prices.

That, and a bit of personal responsibility from people who have kids they cannot afford, expecting other people to pay for them. They could learn a thing or two from people paying for this about how to have only the kids you can afford.

I'm 72 and vote labour. Can I have some way of opting out of the criticism of what I'm supposed to do but don't,?

when I saw your headline I thought you were complaining about people getting benefits & I was ready for a bit of a rant..... reading your rant & I completely agree.

Obviously I blame Thatcher of the Right to Buy which may have helped a lot of people but councils didn't maintain a housing stock because it didn't sit with the Thatcherite concept of capitalism. Those with money could be rewarded with more & those without could only blame themselves. This position was embraced by Johnson who couldn't give money to his wealthy friends quickly enough. Given half a chance Farage will also run with this idea leaving those without with even less & the poverty/wealth gap growing

It was, but I agree with you. People used to plant trees for their grandchildren and governments do things that benefitted the future. Now everything must be an instant hit or they won't do it.

Wow. That is crazy rent money

The thing with central London rents and HB claimants, is that some people do need to be local. If you're a nurse/carer and have night shifts, even zone 4 isn't reliable. You can't rely on night shift workers for the country's capital, being married to a wealthy partner able to afford London housing costs.

Normal 9-5, yes fair enough. DH has always commuted daily from outside M25 with only train strikes and snow to mitigate. But then, you can't really have a policy to say we'll only pay London rents for night shift workers.

Much of the cost of building new homes though is the cost of the land, and people are so wedded to the idea of property/land as an investment that they aren’t going to sell it off cheaply.

Government incentives to use brown field sites and repurpose existing buildings will go some way to increasing land availability. The other thing though is it’s not government who ultimately decide, it’s local authorities who have many competing pressures. There would need to be a clear commitment to building and a will to be unpopular in decision making for anything to change.

I do think there’s a need for decent social housing - secure tenancies and flexibility in the system which would reduce the hold of private landlords.

I'm a lifelong Labour voter from a diehard Labour voting family and I will not vote Labour again.

I'm sick of working hard and sacrificing my family size to what I can afford so I can pay for other people's laziness and kids.

In fairness house owners don’t want house prices to fall either, because they’ll feel the hit on their on paper wealth. Or find themselves in negative equity and not be able to sell their home without retaining significant debt.

Yes, as with anything.

You need a car to get to work. Do you go for a short term solution and pay for a taxi? Or go for a long term solution and buy a car, which is a hell of a lot more expensive, but works out cheaper in the long run.

Upfront cost for long term gain is beneficial.

There is no shortage of land in this country. What makes land expensive is if it allowed to be built on. Allow more land to be built on and watch cost of building come down.

And try not to bring in 11.3 million more net immigrants over the next 25 years, like in the last 25.

And have people take responsibility for kids they choose to have. Although ship already sailed yesterday.

I agree that everyone should be able to have a car. But why can't the government regulate private rent ? What would happen ?

What happened in Edinburgh. Rents get even more expensive.

Socialism has never, ever worked. Anywhere.

As posted above.

If people aren't getting a return or if there is too much regulation then they will just sell and use other investments.

Which again just reduces properties available to rent and increases competition for rentals.

Also you're just left with the huge corporations that let properties and the problems that come with them. Again they will only do it of there is a profit for them.

Council doesnt have enough properties to house everyone who needs it.

It's odd how in countries like Norway and Sweden where children are properly supported families don't generally have "more kids than they can afford".

In fact Norwegians are now worried about a falling birthrate:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/17/rethink-what-we-expect-from-parents-norway-grapple-with-falling-birthrate

What you are saying is short term. Building houses is not rocket science. Countries build entire cities in months. Unfortunately that takes smart people to be in charge.

Yes! Too many people having kids they can’t afford and then needing bigger houses which they can’t afford.
A family of 3 can get a 2 bed flat for example which is much cheaper to run and bills would be cheaper etc.

Yes like China (more efficient)

Did putting kids into poverty over the last fourteen years lower our overall tax bill?

Or have the long-term costs of children being raised in poverty actually meant we were all worse off in the long run?

In the next 25 years our government will be paying people to have kids

It is exceptionally foolish to have 4 children if you can't afford the very modest cost of life insurance or work in a professional role where it's offered as a standard benefit. Frankly, nobody should be having 4 kids unless they are very wealthy, as the impact of job loss etc is so catastrophic.

I'm extremely unhappy that my taxes have been used to line the pockets of landlords allowing them to inflate the price of property such that the ordinary people cannot afford a roof over their heads.

If only they would have done it earlier I would have had more kids if I could have afforded it.

But couldn't afford it.