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...

Some people will be. If you're entitled to 3 bedrooms under DWP rules, the amount that will be added to your UC calculation in my area is £1,450 a month or the actual rent, whichever is the lower.

That doesn't mean that you'll get £1,450, because it could take you over the benefit cap, and there will be a deduction according to how much you've earned if your earnings are over £411.

And who are they I wonder -did you cut the asking price on the home you were selling?

Concentrating businesses in London is part of the problem. Thatcher never invested in the regions after the miners strike, then ensuing govs did the same.

i lived in the SE prices increased by about 4x.
possibly more since 1990 I’m not there now. Where I am now prices doubled over 25 years.
Immigration is concentrated in SE. So more demand.
Giving housing benefits to cover the rents of poorer people so they can stay in London must be contributed to by taxes by those in the regions who are also not getting the perks of good job opportunities.
Encouraging companies Moving out of London would be a good idea. Look at Aberdeen now. They’ve trashed the oil industry what now?

People putting children into poverty are their parents. Having more than two kids and then claiming poverty is nobody’s fault but the people engaging in this utter recklessness. Why should other people take their hard earned money from their own kids to give those people who make bad decisions after bad decisions.

I don't know much about economics but if rent was regulated, decreasing the value of property and that property was being sold of then couldn't it be bought by the government and they can continue to provide low cost housing ?

OP you are far too sensible.

Children are not pets that we acquire for own amusement or entertainment. They are the next generation of people, vital and necessary.
We need to incentivize people to have children if we are to avoid population collapse.

Or people take more responsibility for their own lives.

🥱

I agree with everything. I wish you were PM @Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits

I'm not convinced about that, tbh.

I need to downsize, and really need something on one level. The service and maintenance charges on a lot of flats are so high that I'd be better off spending a bit more and getting a bungalow.

One flat had charges of £4.5k pa. At first, I thought I was looking at a sheltered housing flat, but it wasn't. Plenty had charges iro £3k and more.

The ones responsible are the super rich and megacorps who dodge taxes and use loopholes like non dom status. Not the middle-high earners who are being targeted now and are already struggling. Labour penalises middle/high earning workers, Tories penalise those on the lowest income and benefits. One certain sector is mysteriously ignored.

Possibly, but at least they won’t be struggling as much as those with multiple children!

It sounds great in theory, but the issues with social housing from a government perspective aren't just pertaining to building the homes.

Social housing has to be maintained. If a government pays a private Landlord, it doesn't have to do any of the work. It doesn't need a team of people answering queries about plumbing issues, etc.

It's basically outsourcing the responsibility of home ownership. After all, the reason for the Right to Buy scheme wasn't to give those on low income a chance to own their own homes, it was to offload the housing stock, a lot of which needed work, updated kitchens and bathrooms, etc.

You're early. The whole tune will change in a few years' time

I think the problem with what you've said is that the property value would decrease.

Unless lots of people are selling at the same time. The property value wouldn't necessarily decrease.

And then it's who buys the property.

More likely a big corporation will buy it, maybe someone who is looking for a home. But unlikely council's have enough money for the number of houses needed.

Population has increased significantly.

Way too early to be worrying about population collapse.

The main concern is caring for the aging population. Definitely not enough being done about that.

I completely agree, OP.

This budget is a missed opportunity. I want a government that takes responsibility for the country’s long-term welfare and is willing to make difficult decisions.

I’d gladly pay more income tax if it meant genuine reform of the welfare system. I want to see real investment in social housing. I don’t believe that simply giving more money to people who won’t use it responsibly will lift their children out of poverty, but investing in Sure Start programmes, early-years support, and education would.

Because the benefits of those investments wouldn’t show up for years, it’s easier for the government to hand out short-term cash and hope for goodwill at the next election. Well, they’ve lost my vote for being ineffective and unwilling to take real action.

Interesting take. I suppose we would have to have a whole new way of government for it to work, perhaps ?

You can't just assume people are poor because they are irresponsible. That is completely unfair, and I see it a lot on this site

Erm not all landlords are raking it in. As a responsible landlord we always carry out and repairs/requests as quickly as possible. By the time we have paid the mortgage, insurance, agents fees, tax there's not a lot of profit left. Yes we do have the property but then we get into the realms of if we sell we are the hit with capital gains tax.Not all landlords scam their tenants for as much money as possible.

And net migration has significantly fallen

100% agree. On another thread about the 2 child cap, I said that I thought that money would be much better invested in affordable good quality social housing. That would benefit the families currently struggle to pay high rents for poor quality accommodation, put more money in their pockets in that way, rather than through paying higher benefits. Properties can be reused by other families in the future and become an asset for the country, whereas when money is paid in benefits its gone forever.
Working with children with disabilities, the single biggest barrier to children getting access to the physical provisions they need, is housing. So much of our time is spent writing to housing to say 'please can you rehouse this family as this child's physical and health needs cannot be met in their current housing'. Children are going for unnecessary surgeries, and not being able to attend school as in some cases as they are physically trapped in their high rise homes, when the dodgy lift breaks down again. Housing affects every area of life. If less time was being spent wiping mould from their damp property or arguing with housing or a dodgy landlord, then they could focus on the needs of their children better.

😂

Totally agree, but annual budgets also contribute to a short term view of spending. Would rather use a sticking plaster on the symptoms that a more expensive but long term better cure of the underlying problem.