To think we can't afford the triple lock

[paddleboardingmum]

Things seem very weighted against young people right now in terms of tax, student loans, and then there's the cost of mortgages and childcare. I know there are some older people struggling and I do feel sorry for them. But plenty are not and I think we just can't afford the triple lock at the moment. AIBU

OP has "timewasters" and people "ghosting" her. That suggests to me that they don't want to take on the work....
It does not suggest there are not enough tradespeople at all.. quite the opposite.

are you trying to be so obtuse?

Shildon was an example, there are plenty of cheap areas in UK. Before you suggest forcing elderly to move from their own homes, which they paid for, let's move those who don't work and are housed by taxpayers. Our annual housing support bill is 37bn.

How about cap rents from private landlords.

Shildon was an example, there are plenty of cheap areas in UK. Before you suggest forcing elderly to move from their own homes, which they paid for

I didn't suggest that. I said they could sell up yes if they needed more money, or get a lodger. Why are they entitled to live in £1 million homes and complain their pension isn't enough while everyone else is taxed to the hilt.

The biggest part of the benefits bill is pensions so..... We do have to look at that. It's what everyone says when anyone mentions UC or pip..

Like can't we just go back to what we had before the coalition government

Um....

yep, Labour increased legislation, not even capped the rents. Landlords are selling off en masse, rents are sky high now.
You cap the rent, you won't have housing to rent at all.
Unless you build of course.
But private housebuilding is down thanks to current economic climate, incl labour shortages.

I can not interpret that.

You repeat the same and don't answer my question:

• why do you think that people are entitled to live in expensive areas at taxpayers cost if they don't work in these ares?

I'll try to answer yours
Why are they (pensioners) entitled to live in £1 million homes - because it's their homes, the homes which they paid for. Pension is a universal benefit, a part of social contract and taken into account when people plan their life financials. It is expected to be sufficient to provide a very basic level of survival. It's currently set at 30% of median income. Definition of poverty is income below 60% of median. Which means that state pension is officially set significantly below poverty level.

really?

In very simple terms the graph says what I tried to explain in words - with rents decreasing/capped the supply of rental properties decreases as well

Yes, not everyone can interpret various lines on a graph.
I am sure there will be things you struggle to understand, but I wont be a knob about it to you.

• why do you think that people are entitled to live in expensive areas at taxpayers cost if they don't work in these ares?

So people claiming unemployment benefits have to immediately move areas? Unworkable. Anyway they are intended as a stopgap. Not sure if your figures are conflating people getting unemployment benefit with people getting housing benefit? I certainly don't think people are living the life of Riley on benefits nor on basic pension if that's all they have.

If on the other hand if you asked me, should someone on benefits consider selling their £1 million home or getting a lodger in order to help make ends meet I would say yes.

Benefits for pensioners are 55% of the total welfare bill, it's 177bn so technically yes, it's the biggest part, but not by large margin. This also includes all benefits for people over retirement age, not state pension only, but also AA, PIP etc.

Out of 177bn total spend the state pension spend is 146bn, which is equal to working age benefits bill.

I don't believe there are working age benefits claimants owning 1m properties. I hope there are none of them.

As to stop gap - there are generations of families with no working adults. I'm not confusing UC with housing benefit. I'm talking about total package.

I agree that there should be some grace period. But if after a year of tax payer funding people still don't have a job in local area, then they should lose their council housing or housing benefit in expensive area and move to the cheapest one. Kids can be schooled anywhere in the country so this can't be an excuse.

The places with the cheapest rent tend to be the places with poor employment and opportunities.

Yes, I know, and that's why I'm talking about households with no adults in employment.

It doesn't matter if they are unemployed in Westminster or Shildon. Give them a year to get jobs, then move to save on benefits. I'm dead sure some will find some form of employment.

It doesn't matter if they are unemployed in Westminster or Shildon. Give them a year to get jobs, then move to save on benefits. I'm dead sure some will find some form of employment.

The job market is extremely tough. It is incredibly difficult to find jobs for a lot of people. Especially young people. Perhaps it's hard to believe if you've not experienced loved ones or yourself going through this and sending off hundreds upon hundreds of applications hearing nothing back.

There are jobs for anyone who wants to work. Might not be their dream job but there are jobs. Absolutely nobody who is physically able to work should be getting state benefits. It’s an absolute joke the tens of thousands of young people claiming benefits for ‘mental health’ who haven’t done a day’s work yet in their lives. No one should be allowed to claim benefits unless they have paid taxes and NI for a minimum 5 years and only then, if they have a genuine physical illness or disability preventing them from working. Not fkin ‘anxiety’. This country is so soft on scroungers now, it’s an absolute joke.

Oh I did experience this - I was made redundant and sent move than 300 CVs in a space of 4 months before I got new job. And I wasn't entitled to any state support because I had some savings.

And before I bought my home I had to move house almost every 18-24 months, incl were my DC were very young, because of rental price hikes which I couldn't afford. Strangely taxpayers never bailed me out, despite me paying huge taxes all my life.

ETA: some friends families and younger former colleagues, highly educated, extremely hard working, wanted to start families, couldn't afford to buy in London so moved elsewhere. Some kept London jobs and commute mid week more than 2h each way, some found jobs in other areas. Why should they move but unemployed continue living in prime areas in London? there are huge council estates in e.g. Westminster, why not to make a condition of living there to have a job in local area?

Housing benefit is the big one, along with greater entitlement for council tax support, as well as smaller stuff like bus passes, the WFA, tv license subsidies, free prescriptions, free NHS denal, eyes tests (and credits for eyewear), bedroom tax exemption, etc.

And before I bought my home I had to move house almost every 18-24 months, incl were my DC were very young, because of rental price hikes which I couldn't afford. Strangely taxpayers never bailed me out, despite me paying huge taxes all my life.

That happens now all the time though. Very hard, but not exclusive to you or your generation.

I'm not saying it's exclusive to my generation. I'm saying it shouldn't be exclusive to people who provide for themselves. And no, I don't suggest to move elderly.