Don't cap my benefits - BBC1

[SoleSource]

Anybody watching?

Impatient - I'm well aware of all that, my point is that individuals should not be suffering. My problem with this is moving the goalposts on people who are already in this situation. They could have implemented this in such a way that they refuse new claims but honour existing ones. That would be much fairer.

Also I would add that a very good way of driving down house prices would be to restrict the rents that could be charged.

If you drive down house prices then it may force people into negative equity and raise repossesions, meaning more demand for social housing.

The single mum (Tracy?) was an entitled mare. Saying she wasn't going to clean toilets, well ya know, someone has to!

I seriously doubt that people who have recently been able to buy a house in the south east would be forced into the position of needing social housing.

If, as nkfsuggests, the houses being rented to HB tenants are those bought outright, then the only thing keeping those rents so high is greed, plain and simple.

I think choosing to be a landlord should bring responsibilities. The only reason working people cannot afford average rents in some areas is because landlords and property vendors are downright greedy.

The other difficulty about talking about the sell off of the council owned houses is that it HAS happened it is too late.

So I totally understand about the fact that these families are here and children have been born. so is there something that the government can do like they did with the married persons allowance and say that from X date the rules will apply to new applicants. I know this makes a 2 tier system but it already is surely so maybe this is the way to go?

Children number 5+ will be supported financially if they are already here but if you currently have 4 children and have a 5th then it will not? God that sounds awful written down.. What is the solution it is all so awful.

FWIW the house that I let out to HB tenants is small and of minimal rent (£450 a month) but not in London.

gaelic, you can not blame the whole problem on greedy landlords.
it really really isn't the problem. We live in a free market economy. there are lots and lots of things that are more expensive than they used to be.

Landlords are there to make money. If they didn't make money there wouldn't be a lot of point in being a landlord. So all this landlord bashing is a bit mad. I do feel sorry for the people who have to move out of their areas. The situation should never have been allowed to get as crazy as it is. With people on £800 a week benefit. Have they any idea of what gross salary they would have to earn to get that amount net.

Being a landlord is a business like any other. I am not one but I recognise, as NeverKnowingly says, that it is a free market economy. I can remember the last time that house prices dropped considerably in the early 90's, leading to mass repossession/people chucking their keys back. This is what happens when prices plummet. I bought a house in this market and it was grim looking round dozens of empty houses that used to be homes. Guess who bought the most repo's? Here's a clue, it wasn't families.

Landlords get bashed to shit on MN and are often told that they have a social responsibility to not charge sky high prices, yet you'll get called names for daring to suggest that people like those who appeared in the programme don't seem to be considering their personal social responsibility.

So you charge more than twice the average mortgage payment on a similar property and you get punitively taxed. What's wrong with that? I am a landlord by the way.

I have had some excellent landlords, and also a few crooks. But I'm starting to wonder whether our need for a home and shelter should ever be turned into a business run for individual profit. In theory I would be all for full state control of rental properties.

Having said that, states can be as crooked as individuals, so who knows ...

Imo social responsibilty starts with those who can well afford it.

gaelic I disagree, we should all be socially responsible. What a sad attitude. You don't need to have money to be a part of the community.

And obviously I was not referring to being part of a community, that is a different issue. I was saying that it is not down to those in need of the welfare state to worry about the wider economic implications. These are the victims of this perverse system we live in, not the perpetuators of it.

Can I join in? I just watched after reading this thread and it made my blood boil, but not for the obvious reasons. Of the families shown, two were working and all the others were single parent families. All single women struggling to cope. Where were the fathers? This government has shafted those most at need whilst awarding themselves an 11% pay rise. In 15-20 years time when the children have grown up, we are going to be faced with an entirely different problem. I agree people should be encouraged to work and it shouldn't be a something for nothing attitude BUT to beat down the worse off in our society is wrong and smacks of injustice to me.
Sorry. Rant over!

When you are a landlord letting to tenants on housing benefit, you are not operating in the free market. You are in receipt of benefits.

You can't expect people to say no to money. A landlord won't. Neither will a single mother who doesn't want to work. I bet most of us claim and spend our child benefit. So, what we seem to have here is a system that makes it really easy to receive money in benefits. You give people things. They come to expect it. That's human nature probably. But now, it's gone. This government has rewritten the rules. And most of those people on the programme seemed ill equipped to cope with any changes.

A lot of things need to change. People need to take respondibility for themselves and not be entitled shits and people should not be allowed to buy up whole streets of new builds and rent them out for thousands of pounds a month. Not allowing people to buy a home and live in it.

WanderingAway It doesn't make any difference to me if a developer buys a whole street, I still can't afford the deposit or the mortgage.

I was stunned by the programme.

It showed very clearly that a single Mum with three young kids who worked just 16 hours a week wouldn't have her benefits capped and would receive a net £811 per week in benefits.

Take a look at your own paypacket or your partners and work out how much you'd have to earn in similar circumstances as the woman featured to have a net income of £811 per week. I'll save you the trouble - it's around £55,000 per annum.

The government is capping benefits for thoise who don't work but still handing out massive cash benefits to those who work a minimum of 16 hours per week.

If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you are accepting in principle that people on low incomes should be forcibly concentrated in areas with the cheapest rents. Can you see the serious flaws in that?