Don't cap my benefits - BBC1

[SoleSource]

Anybody watching?

Why can't Job Centres regularly receive temporary jobs to be allocated to those able to work? If a temp agency can do it, why can't a job centre? I am not talking about jobs in Tesco's but work that would benefit the local council, charities and communities. This would give experience and also give something back to the system. It should be the case that when you sign on, you have to pick up a P/T assignment. Of course some people may find this hard with childcare, but not everyone has very young children. You may think this is pie in the sky but I worked as a recruiter on a temp desk for 5 years when I was younger and it is very easy to coordinate.

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm a UK citizen who has lived abroad. I have a disability and was told I didn't qualify for benefits since I "don't have residency"

If I had the possibility of living at one of the residential facilities offered to visually impaired to learn life skills and had free transport, I would be a lot more independent.

I speak 7 languages so could find work, even if I had to volunteer first. I WANT to be useful and I love to do things.

NakedFlame, there is supported work for blind but in order to get work you have to be on benefits, which I apparently "don't qualify for."

The move if they must thing isn't that easy if you are disabled and reliant on a Carer though is it?

hellokitty lots of people with a disability want to be independent and it's fab that increasingly they can, I have a friend with CP causing him to be unable to use 3 hands who cannot work. Increasingly, with technology, it will be possible for the majority of disabled people to work (sadly independence is limited by the closing of the ILF). But for some, like my ds3 who has autism, severe speech delays and associated issues, it will be an achievement to be able to head to the local shop alone, let alone hold down a job.

Hi Tracy, I didn't see the programme but well done you for coming on here and fighting your corner against to many judgey posts, I wish you well x

'I moved from the NW to north London to work, then to Surrey, then to 4 other countries to work. I am now moving to Essex for work. Most people I know move around with their work to be able to support themselves. Why should those on benefits be any different?'

That's what I meant in my post above, sorry.

And yes we moved from England to Wales for work; subsequently the boys were diagnosed with autism. We are too settled for work to move and Dh would not find any work back home, but it is hellish coping without family support so far away from them. They don't drive, I can't afford to drive to them often, so I find myself unable to do pretty much anything. A neighbour recently asked why nobody saw me for the first five years we were here; that's why, complete isolation and coping with disabled kids.

Now we are not capped as we have the boys and DH is employed, but nonetheless I would not wish the isolation of the past decade on anyone, and not having a disabled family member now does not mean you never will. The resultant depression almost cost me my life 3 times, and as DH is self employed and no work equals no pay in that situation, I was alone to cope with that.

I am not judging individuals. They are not at fault but the system should never have been allowed to develop in the first place. But people cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise those massive rents. Some people can't even afford to leave home and yet they are paying income tax and contributing towards people who are given multiple times their salary in benefits. The system is unbalanced.

Massive rents are not the norm though, and even low rents are capped by bedroom tax. And massive rents arose because of competition- something that could be prevented by building social housing.

Also: I live in a cheap area. We are cheap for a reason, low employment. Why do people think our area can absorb all the people considered too expensive to house in London? We already have silly competition for jobs, massive housing waiting lists of our own (poor area = low rent but also low incomes so more housing need), all the extra demands on health and social services that poverty brings. All a large influx of people would do to our area is cause extreme deprivation and make it harder for the people working here to cope with housing, health,, school places etc and the needy here to turn their lives around. What special right does the SE have to being naice that it thinks it is OK to do this to us? instead of us having to lose our places on waiting lists for newcomers and the like, why can't the SE build social housing?

I am not in the Welsh Valleys but not far either, do people really think that areas like that need a big influx of deprived people? That they can cope? Why do people think those areas ARE less expensive anyway? Because wages are lower and jobs more scarce. Meaning there is already plenty of competition for often scant resources.

I don't think people should be entitled to expensive prime estate of course, but I do think LAs should have a responsibility to support their own people or areas like mine become a ghetto, a dumping ground. We work, but don't earn masses- why is it OK to use our taxes to support people but SE residents don't want their council tax used for it?

I am happy for our taxes to help people who live here, I don't want to have to subsidise an influx of poor homeless sods who have no links with this area and will likely suffer deprivation because of being moved on top of the already needy people here, the 20% unemployed for example, or the disabled people forced out of our better off areas into the estates. I don't see why ds3 should for example lose some disability support because of people sent here from the SE needing extra help, which they will as poor often equals most vulnerable, or kids already fighting for a 1/10 chance of a place at ds1's SN School see that chance reduced to 1 / 15 or worse.

If people come of their own choice or to seek a new future fine, that's what we did and it worked- but this sort of mass displacement policy just works against normal, hard working people in poorer areas. as well as directly harming the chances of those moved on, and placing them at all sorts of risks.

I remember when benefit changes came in, the state booked out thousands of B&B places in Maidstone and Hastings for homeless people. I pitied anyone already there trying to get any kind of services!

Build social housing. It's the only way. but they won't as so many BTL landlords vote Tory, and rather like being at the head of a market where there are far more people than properties. Trouble is, it's the same here- 30k council waiting list.

Gaelic sheep - if the govt decided that you could only let your rental property to a HB tenant and that your rental income was going to be reduced by 35% of what you currently charge would you be happy with that? Would you be glad that the govt was being sensible and reducing the rent? Or is it only okay to do that to people who rent houses in areas where the property has cost a lot to buy?

The Government implements many laws I don't personally agree with. I wouldn't be too chuffed if I was one of the people being made homeless just now! Since we are charging a perfectly reasonable rent in any case there would be no case for it being reduced, but if that was the case then so be it. My points were really aimed at landlords who have multiple rental properties, not people temporarily renting out their home.

I have never viewed our house rental as a money making thing anyway. It pays the mortgage and we set the rest aside for property related expenses until we can move back. Unless you own a house outright I can't see that you can/should make a profit out of letting a house, unless you skimp on maintenance and other expenses (which, of course, many landlords do).

But the point is that even with extortionate London rents most landlords don't make much profit on a day to day basis because their initial purchase price is eye wateringly high and their mortgage is high. Only those who own the property outright are making huge profits. All landlords, like yourself, profit from the increased property value.
If you had paid 500k for your house you wouldn't be charging £450pm in rent, would you?
Just like I was able to charge £70pw a decade ago.

Sorry, but that whole not wanting to scrub toilets thing. It's not a job anyone wants to do but it's a job and some find it beneath them, but want a house in London paid for whilst they are 'in college', God forbid that do some menial job, too good for that!

Nope, not a jot of sympathy from me.

And most landlords, even those with many rental properties don't own them outright. They have portfolios of houses all on BTL mortgages.
Gaelicsheep - will you feel bad when you give your tenants their notice to quit because you want to move back into your house? Will you be displacing a family?

Nope, not at all. It's pointless trying to tie me down on this. Our circumstances are very particular and the question hasn't arisen. We can plan to move back precisely because we've taken tenants who want the property relatively short term. And property values in our area have not risen at all so we are not profiting in the least. I take it you live in the south east?

I frankly don't care about whether landlords can afford to keep their BTL properties. It was great for us that it worked out to rent out the house, but if we'd had to sell it then we would have sold it. If landlords have to charge an arm and a leg to keep their heads above water, then their letting business isn't viable. They should certainly not be kept afloat by the benefit system. BUT, the people suffering should NOT be their tenants.

Exactly what expat said re: the toilet cleaning. Besides, as I said up thread, someone has to clean toilets and tidy the trolleys in Tesco, we can't all be high fliers and every small part counts.

You don't think that perhaps the poor woman was taken out of context, or a slip of the tongue out of sheer frustration was given much more prominence than was actually justified? Give her a break for goodness sake. She has come on here and tried to give her side of the story. The benefits team encouraged her to go on the course. It is just not on to move the goalposts when she's halfway through. It helps nobody, not her, not her kids and not the tax payer.

This thread us entirely indicative of the, frankly evil, divide and rule mentality they have fostered.

A few facts; typically those families receiving high levels of benefits incur them largely through housing benefit. Did you know that following the right to buy policy, when large swathes of the country's social housing stock was sold off cheap, almost half the council houses bought in this way in London are now owned by landlords?

Put it another way; the taxpayer paid to build social housing, which can be rented at low rents to poor families. The Tories sold them off cheap to tenants, some of whom sold on, others were evicted when they couldn't meet mortgage payments. Others sold later at a massive profit to the lucky purchasers. So having already paid for social housing to be built, the taxpayers now must fund a massively increased housing bill because essentially, social housing was privatised. But this is somehow the fault of the tenants??

I totally totally agree that people need to be encouraged into work. But possibly even more vital is that their (often multiple) children be given the best possible start, to hopefully enable them to lead economically active lives in the future. Is it really in these children's interests to be transplanted across the country, away from their communities, schools and extended families? Don't punish the kids for the parents' failings, or the cycle is repeated, at extra cost to the country.

It is also naive to suggest that London can function without the people on minimum wage jobs, which is where this policy ultimately leads. The programme showed clearly that even those who worked were indirectly affected by the cap, by the landlords raising rents and evicting HB recipients.

Surely the solution is to properly rebuild the social housing stock, in every area of London, and reclaim the ownership of providing homes for the poor. A building programme would boost GDP through extra employment, and would reduce the HB bill far more effectively and humanely.

Don't fall for the Tory divide and rule; it's the game they play. They did the same on child benefit - sector off a group and then it doesn't matter if it's unfair, because enough people aren't affected to mind. But that is not the way to run a civilised society, and the combination of the benefit cap and the bedroom tax is a toxic and horrifying attack on the most vulnerable in society, and their children, who have done nothing to deserve this.

Sorry for typo at start, should say 'this thread is' not 'this thread us'

No, I live in the north, we have seen property prices rise by 20% in the last 2 years,

Surely the solution is to properly rebuild the social housing stock, in every area of London,

Where is this land to build on?

Brown field sites are a good start; I know it's hideously difficult in London but as a country we simply cannot abandon our responsibilities to house the poor and vulnerable, and if housing benefit in private properties is impossible then social housing must be the answer.

I am not in London, but another city with pressure on land and high private rents. However there are many derelict properties which have been falling down for decades; abandoned offices/hotels/petrol stations etc. That would be a good place to start establishing some social housing builds.

But who pays for the redevelopment of brownfield sites and petrol stations?

Lots of them are contaminated with chemicals and radioactive materials from the early 20th century when waste was simply buried on site and they cannot be redeveloped without the contamination being removed and properly disposed of, which is very expensive.

Sometimes the economics only stack up when redevelopig sites that will be sold for a lot of money.

There isn't many derelict properties in the expensive areas of London. Property ripe for redevelopment gets snapped up quickly in London.
Developing and building on brownfield land isn't, in my opinion, a good idea as the health risks are too great. I think it is better to move somebody to a new area than to build on brownfield land. Methane and other gasses can be released during development of brownfield land and it can have health implications for nearby residents and we don't know what health risks there are long term for those living on developed brown field land. Additionally there isn't the money to build on brownfield land due to the additional costs that it requires.