Difficult to live on £500 a week??

[GOM]

As stated earlier the people receiving the bulk of that money will not be the benefit claimant, but the landlord of their rented property

...and in a lot of other peoples cases that are working, the bulk of their money will be going to the mortgage company (or landlord) and to council tax.

 

[highway61]

The original post was about people complaining about a £500 /wk cap. I don't think anybody was judging anything else.

Fair point mate, been a bad day, and every time news comes on its the words, cuts and benefits...kinda get to you sometimes. but yeah,you are right.

 

[Hotchilidog]

...and in a lot of other peoples cases that are working, the bulk of their money will be going to the mortgage company (or landlord) and to council tax.

The point I was making is that those benefit payments are artificially high because the current system allows landlords to milk it. It is not the claimant that is ripping off the taxpayer here it is private sector landlords who can get away with charging premium rents for poor housing stock as there is a severe lack of social housing available for those who need it.

It is quite in keeping with the nature of this government that the first people they look to cough up some dough to are those at the bottom of society whilst they watch their city friends count up their bonuses for this year after we spent billions saving their sorry-arses.

Sadly this is cheap ill-thought out headline grabbing politics masquerading as 'economic policy'.

 

[GOM]

The point I was making is that those benefit payments are artificially high because the current system allows landlords to milk it. It is not the claimant that is ripping off the taxpayer here it is private sector landlords who can get away with charging premium rents for poor housing stock as there is a severe lack of social housing available for those who need it.

It is quite in keeping with the nature of this government that the first people they look to cough up some dough to are those at the bottom of society whilst they watch their city friends count up their bonuses for this year after we spent billions saving their sorry-arses.

Sadly this is cheap ill-thought out headline grabbing politics masquerading as 'economic policy'.

The same private sector landlords are also the ones that those not on benefits rent from too.
Rental values are amongst other things a factor of the purchase price or value of a property to reap a return.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As stated earlier the people receiving the bulk of that money will not be the benefit claimant, but the landlord of their rented property who can pretty much charge what they like as they know the government are picking up the tab.

I agree with you that a large chunk of their money will go towards rent but as a landlord that rents to council tenants this statement isn't true. Before the person that the council pays the rent for in one of my flats was able to sign the tenancy agreement it had to go to the council. They made very clear the limit to which they would pay and not go over. As it happens is was £20 per month below what I was already charging so I had to drop the rent or lose the prospective council tenant. It's a falacy that councils pay high rents - they pay very average rents. I could get more with a purely private tenant but the council guarentees me payment so a small drop in rent was worth the extra security.

 

[beorhthelm]

The point I was making is that those benefit payments are artificially high because the current system allows landlords to milk it. It is not the claimant that is ripping off the taxpayer here it is private sector landlords who can get away with charging premium rents for poor housing stock as there is a severe lack of social housing available for those who need it.

i think this is incorrect. as i've always understood it, the DSS/council doesnt pay more than "market rate" and most landlords letting to DSS/council do so with below average quality/value properties. renters paying out o their own pocket pay the premiums. the trade off is more reliable payment.

the whole point of the cap is to avoid where renters are sitting in plum properties in expensive areas. yes, it means some people wont be able to live in nice or central properties, but so f***ing what. if i want to live in a nice place i have to work for it, so should everyone. if you dont work, you dont need to be living in central locations.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

i think this is incorrect. as i've always understood it, the DSS/council doesnt pay more than "market rate" and most landlords letting to DSS/council do so with below average quality/value properties. renters paying out o their own pocket pay the premiums. the trade off is more reliable payment.
.

Correct - you also have to prove that your property adheres to the councils quality criteria.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The point I was making is that those benefit payments are artificially high because the current system allows landlords to milk it. It is not the claimant that is ripping off the taxpayer here it is private sector landlords who can get away with charging premium rents for poor housing stock as there is a severe lack of social housing available for those who need it.

It is quite in keeping with the nature of this government that the first people they look to cough up some dough to are those at the bottom of society whilst they watch their city friends count up their bonuses for this year after we spent billions saving their sorry-arses.

Sadly this is cheap ill-thought out headline grabbing politics masquerading as 'economic policy'.

So the £1.1 billionish saving from child benefit is being taken from the bottom of society is it?

 

[Hotchilidog]

So the £1.1 billionish saving from child benefit is being taken from the bottom of society is it?

To be honest in principle I don't have a problem with top rate taxpayers not receiving child benefit. However this policy again shows how ill-thought the policy making is with this govt when a household worth £45,000 loses money and a household worth £86,000 is quids in! How is that fair?

And going back to the housing benefit, not all housing benefit claimants are council tenants. There are many in the private sector too. Although I stand to be corrected on this if westdene has the info on that too.

In my view none of the proposals this week from the tory conference have been designed to strengthen the economy. The amounts of money involved are not large to make a big enough dent in the black hole caused by the banking crisis and ill-conceived war-mongering of Tony Blair. It's gesture politics at its worse and it will have a serious effect on many people who are not in a position to help themselves. All this in a week when it transpires that Billions are set to be paid in city bonuses this year.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

I think you'll find most of that £500 is going straight into the pockets of rip-off landlords who exploit the housing benefit system for their own ends, not into the pockets of the low -paid or unemployed.

Most of it is probably going up their starboard nostril or down the pisser via an aluminium can,
let the cvnts starve.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

And going back to the housing benefit, not all housing benefit claimants are council tenants. There are many in the private sector too. Although I stand to be corrected on this if westdene has the info on that too.

That's correct although the rent and quality criteria remian the same for landlords. Only real difference is that you may not know that you're tenant gets housing benefit. They can select to get the cash from the council and top it up themselves if they want a more expensive property or ask the council to pay the rent direct to the landlord if they wish.

The key to it is that landlords don't just pick some randomly high figure to charge, it's down to the amount of property available for rent in the area and there will always be a landlord willing to undercut. It's actually very difficult to make a profit once you take into account the mortgage, maintenance charges, costs of finding tenants etc etc etc. For some reason people demonise landlords - a large majority are very good. Like any sector there will be the odd rogue. I'm not sure what people would do that can't get a mortgage for whatever reason if there was no private landlords, the council will never have enough property to house everyone that needs it.

 

[Hotchilidog]

That's correct although the rent and quality criteria remian the same for landlords. Only real difference is that you may not know that you're tenant gets housing benefit. They can select to get the cash from the council and top it up themselves if they want a more expensive property or ask the council to pay the rent direct to the landlord if they wish.

The key to it is that landlords don't just pick some randomly high figure to charge, it's down to the amount of property available for rent in the area and there will always be a landlord willing to undercut. It's actually very difficult to make a profit once you take into account the mortgage, maintenance charges, costs of finding tenants etc etc etc. For some reason people demonise landlords - a large majority are very good. Like any sector there will be the odd rogue. I'm not sure what people would do that can't get a mortgage for whatever reason if there was no private landlords, the council will never have enough property to house everyone that needs it.

Thanks for that response. I think you make a valid point regarding the demonisation of landlords, after all that is sort of what I have been doing on here this afternoon.

However it is also true that many benefit claimants are demonised in the same way, which has been my main point during this discussion.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

The trouble is that the whole "welfare state" has become a bloated, unmanageble mess through years of mismanagement and f*** ups (Labour AND Tory alike) added to which people on both sides on the make (playing the system) which is a real shame.

 

[Perkino]

net £500 / week equates to approx £2150 /mth net.

net £2150 / mth equates to salary of approx £35,000 per year.

Most working people I know are on less than that and seem to survive, so I think most others could too.

Can you check the maths please... I make it £26,000 per year

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Can you check the maths please... I make it £26,000 per year

Thats still a bloody good wage tho.

 

[Perkino]

I agree £500 week is a perfectly ample sum of money to survive, and most people (including myself) in this country actually do. However what is misleading is the notion that there are millions of people pocketing £500 a week for doing nothing and that htey are living it up in the lap of luxury. This is not the case. As stated earlier the people receiving the bulk of that money will not be the benefit claimant, but the landlord of their rented property who can pretty much charge what they like as they know the government are picking up the tab.

If the rents were at more reasonable level, then the amount of benefits being paid out could be reduced dramatically. But then why punish wealthy landlords when you can socially engineer the undesirables out of the centre of London and other major cities.

If you can't afford the rent of an inner city dwelling then move somewhere cheaper. Why should the government fund this?

if those claiming large benefits to live in London were not there then landlords would have to charge less due to demand which means the rest of us who do work can afford a nice inner city place

 

[Robbie G]

To be honest in principle I don't have a problem with top rate taxpayers not receiving child benefit. However this policy again shows how ill-thought the policy making is with this govt when a household worth £45,000 loses money and a household worth £86,000 is quids in! How is that fair?

The argument for not sorting out this problem (and others that may come up) is that the admin costs would be too great relative to the proposed savings.

 

[sten_super]

Can you check the maths please... I make it £26,000 per year

I think his point is that the household is receiving £500 a week (£2150 a month) without paying income tax on it. That equates to £25,800 annual take home pay, which he approximates to a gross wage of £35,000.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The argument for not sorting out this problem (and others that may come up) is that the admin costs would be too great relative to the proposed savings.

Exactly. Tax credits cost in the region of £1.5 billion to administer.

 

[sten_super]

Exactly. Tax credits cost in the region of £1.5 billion to administer.

I think it's very good that the government is looking at ways of making the process more streamlined and less costly, even though it was bound to cause a controversy. It seems to me that the most cost-effective way to manage the benefits system is you either have one means-test undertaken by every household in the country, and pay a 'top up' benefit to this to bring it to some given minimum (which would be a system completely full of holes as soon as you take things like disability into account), or you find other tests that are already undertaken which act as proxies for means-testing, which is exactly what this child-benefit measure is doing.