Poor forced from the city's centre!

[redflag]

Am i alone in seeing if housing benefit is cut, and the poor are forced out of the cities, buy to let homes will go up for sale then the double dip recession (actually the third dip by my counting) will kill our housing market even more.

People act like only those who are out of work get housing benefit, and also that the poor or out of work don't deserve to have nice things and like like other human beings, getting really sick of it actually!

But the children are already there! and actually it does in title them to have accommodation fit for the amount of people who are housed, its the law.

Most of the people who have large houses are asylum seekers from countries where people have large amount of children!

So what do we do stop supporting people who are in need and let them live in squalor!

Sorry i disagree

The lady in the paper today was from Somalia, she needed help and we gave it to her, so now what drag the carpet from under her feet?

Most people living in central London are either rich, or poor. The rich live in the nice houses, the poor live in the council estates, or in privately rented houses. Just have a look at Notting Hill, where the rich rub shoulders with the poor.

But where are the middle income earners? They are the ones who are not residing in central London. They start their commute into London at 7am form their suburban home in commutersville and arrive home 12/13 hours later.

I think it's a bit of over-hype to say the poor are being forced out. Inner city council estates will still be there, regardless of benefits cuts. If the residents were going to move out they would have already done it, IMO.

really bored of 'they've got a better house' than me line. it's what cammeron says everyday in some form or another. in fact he based his entire tv performances on it prior to the election...why should the mr.hard worker live next door to mr.blah and go out to work, while mr. blah does blah, blah, blah.

now, it's mr.blah has got a matchbox and mr.blah has a mansion and it's not fair [despite them needing a big house to house their big family].

ever stopped to think what mr. cammeron has in comparison to us instead of what those with so little have compared to us?

agree with OP. ultra fed up of hearing that humans with real feelings and children just like mine, don't deserve to be treated fairly in 2010 in the UK.

I went to visit a pal in Glouceseter Place last week. Seriously expensive. Pop star territory.

I could not possibly afford to live there and DH and I are both earning a wack.
There is no possible reason in hell why the state are paying for anyone to live there. Yet they are.

And I'm not so sure the centre of London is such a great place to be if you have children very little money.

And Lego it's not the size of the flats. They are all reasobnably sized. It's the sheer desirability of the area and the fact that two bed flats go for over a bar and a half.

What has David Camerons wealth got to do with housing benefit?

Lynette, you're right.
My pal is living there cos she's a single gal about town.
Why a family with two or three kids wants or needs to live there is beyond me. And the rents...fuck me...sky high.

Cameron's wealth has everything to do with HB. For one he is a money grabbing landlord who coins £28000 a year fro his property (yet he'll not be affected by all this will he). Two, he and many of the cabinet are millionaires who nothing about how ordinary people live and yet they make policy to rub our noses deeper into the dirt. This is a horribly reactionary thread (apart from OP and Lego) - there was a much more intelligent one started a couple of days ago.

The PMs and the other members of the cabinets personal wealth is irrelevant to this discussion. HB has been cut because it has risen out of control in recent years and the country must make savings in order to pay off the deficit.

I was listening to lbc earlier, and i have changed my mind slightly now! I agree housing benefit should be cut slightly.

But i think there should be a maximum amount a landlord can charge for a property!

There you go, then everyone is happy!

I think that would be a good resolve.

Even with the cuts, it's still quite a lot of money. £400 a week maximum? I've never lived anywhere HALF that expensive in my working life.

And you believe in the deficit too. Oh ha ha. Why not find out something about it instead of believing the crap. You could start here:
leninology.blogspot.com/

telsa you don't believe that we have a deficit?

You cannot say that there is a maximum a landlord can charge for a property. It is a privately owned asset and people can do whatever they like with it.
Shall we also tell people what they can spend their money on? 'No you can't buy that car, it is too expensive for you', 'No you mustn't spend more than £60 on your weekly shop, it is extravagant'.

How ridiculous.

This cap should help to bring rental prices down, which will help those who are not entitled to housing benefit but are renting privately.

I don't buy people moaning about moving area, having a longer commute or whatever. It is what you have to do when you don't get any benefits, you have to take a decision about how near to your place of work you can afford to live and weigh it up against commuting time. Why should those on HB have some kind of special status?

MaMoTTaT - will this cap really have an effect where you live? We are in an expensive commuter town in the SE, and looking at rental prices locally I can't see that people are going to need to move because of the cap. You can rent a 4-bed in a decent area for £1100 a month which is well short of the £1600 a month cap on HB for a 4-bed.

telsa - why a 'money-grabbing' landlord? He can do what he likes with his own assets.

We don't have a deficit - WTF? Clearly you don't live on the same planet as the rest of us.

But surely if you have a longer commute your travel costs are also going to be higher, possibly negating the saving made by moving further out.

I don't believe in it in the sense that it is constructed as something arising from 'our profligacy' and therefore we must suffer to pay it off (hoping we all forget about the baks and the money put to salvaging capitalism). The UK has carried far higher debts in the past and not acted like this - ie punishing the poor. We also have very favourable interest rates, which mean repayments are not actually necessary now. It is being used as an ideological smokescreen to demolish the welfare state. There is plenty more that can be said on it - that' is why I refer people to the blog Lenin's Tomb and elsewhere. But for example, here Greg Philo explains how easily it could be wiped out, if that were wanted, within the bounds of reformism (though I''d prefer revolution):

'The total personal wealth in the UK is £9,000bn, a sum that dwarfs the national debt. It is mostly concentrated at the top, so the richest 10% own £4,000bn, with an average per household of £4m. The bottom half of our society own just 9%. The wealthiest hold the bulk of their money in property or pensions, and some in financial assets and objects such antiques and paintings.

A one-off tax of just 20% on the wealth of this group would pay the national debt and dramatically reduce the deficit, since interest payments on the debt are a large part of government spending. So that is what should be done. This tax of 20%, graduated so the very richest paid the most, would raise £800bn. A major positive for this scheme is that the tax would not have to be immediately paid. The richest 10% have only to assume liability for their small part of the debt. They can pay a low rate of interest on it and if they wish make it a charge on their property when they die. It would be akin to a student loan for the rich.'

We also have very favourable interest rates, which mean repayments are not actually necessary now

If we don't take steps to reduce the deficit then we won't get favourable interest rates in the future. That, unfortunately is the way it works in the real world.

Ok, try it your way if you want the sort of equality that comes when your richest people bugger off to anywhere else in the world. Quite a lot of those 'rich people' will be the ones who actually create employment. So we'll be left with less jobs, less tax income. Good plan.

telsa - you cannot tax assets that people have bought with money that has already been taxed once - think about what kind of precedent it sets.
A legally owned asset - be it a house, car, painting, pension fund or whatever - can be 'grabbed' by the government at any time when they feel they are getting short of money??
I thought we had moved on from a feudal taxation system........

Bertie - to some extent, but an extra £150 a month on the train ticket won't support an extra £60k of mortgage. That was the equation for us when deciding whether to live here or one stop further into London.

Also - re: interest rates. The government does not borrow at BoE base rate. I don't know what the rates are, but they are higher and variable.

I have a vision of a line of 'the poor' pacing slowing along the streets of Myafair pulling their belongings in a cart as they have been evicted becuase they tax free lump sum has been cut . oh dear what a shame.

I think capping HB is a good idea and will bring the rental markey down as landlords will have no choice but - either that or have an emmpty flat / house .

A woman on newsnight last night was paying , sorry being paid , £500 per week in HB , £2000 a month - what a mortage that would be .

BertieBotts Thu 28-Oct-10 00:05:42
"But surely if you have a longer commute your travel costs are also going to be higher, possibly negating the saving made by moving further out."

No, because the price of houses is so much lower outside London.

We are 50 mins by train from London. You can get a 4 bed detatched in a nice area for £250K, next to an "outstanding" state school. Lots of people here do the commute into London, so I guess despite the cost of the train fare, it's the best option for a lot of families.

Avantia, your image made me laugh!

tax free lump sum? what tax free lump sum?

that woman will NEVER be able to save for a mortgage of 2k. she is paying, or HB is paying off the landlords mortgage and then some on top.

Thing is that the landlord can retire on that house. she can't and will always be worrying and looking for rent money.

the next thing is, anyone can loose their home and find themselves in a position of homelessness.

worse still, this morning on the news they are suggesting the HB money goes straight to the landlord. oh dear.