Bolitics The New Condem Government

[LondonLax]

The function of the welfare state should be to provide a basic level of support for those that need it, not to provide a higher standard of living than that available to lots of people who aren't on benefits.

No shit but this is going to seriously **** a lot of people over. It seems like it needs to be reworked a bit so the change is not as abrupt.

How about if you are a normal working family living in London. You lose your job because of cutbacks or whatever, you get jobseekers allowance and rent assistance hopefully just short term whilst you look for a new job.

Unfortunately with these new rules your average house will not be covered up to its full rent value so chances are you lose that as well and have to move out and most likely move out of London altogether.

It seems like a step too far to me.

[Awol]

Currently, on the Government’s own estimate, 52% of properties in central London are available to benefits’ claimants because they are within the local housing allowance levels. This will reduce to 7% under the proposed reform.

As long as clean and safe accomodation is available to LHA claimants then I don't see the problem. Maybe some children will have to share bedrooms (like I and many others with two working parents had to as young kids) but I'm afraid that ultimately greater choice comes with paying your own way.

Obviously no one wants to see families literally out in the streets but will that be the case, or it will it actually involve then moving into accommodation of a size and in a location that relfects their financial means? Small wonder we're broke when people argue otherwise.

[snowychap]

The real issue that is going to **** people is the reduction in allowence to the 30th percentile of properties in an area.

Indeed.

It's probably why Grant Shapps had such a beaming grin on his face when discussing the cap on TV last night and why the likes of Clegg, Cameron et al are quite happy to have the discussion on those terms.

[kidlewis]

so if an area has rents between £2000pm and £500pm for a 4 bed property, they will be limited to a rent of a maximum of £950pm?

Yeah that seems right. So currently you have loads of people renting in that area for up to the median rate but everyone in that area currently getting up to the mean will have their rents cut and be forced to try and find a place to rent for £950pm.

There are not going to be enough of those places for those families though so they will be forced to move somewhere else and hope to find a city or town where there are loads of available properties in the 30th pecentile free to rent.

the issue there is not with the percentile, but with the lack of affordable housing in general.

forget people getting cut in benefits, it's harder to get on the property ladder now on a decent mortgage rate.

there needs to be a serious injection of cash and more focus on affordable housing in many areas.

London will always be expensive and that will never change, and I think whilst some families need support in housing benefit, there needs to be a sense of realisation that you can't live within a mile and a half of westminster cheap or with massive handouts.

I want to move back to where I grew up, but I don't have £1200 a month to spend on renting there or the ability to get a £350k mortgage, so I moved to Coventry and my partner relocated as well to find a job.

However I think these new powers given to local communities might offer another path to achieving affordable housing.

the village I want to move to has a development on the homebuy scheme and housing association. Criteria is tough, you need connections to the village (lived there as a child, work very close, children school there etc), and you have to be on the housing list scheme in level 1 or 2 (bascially renting an overcrowded house, or being abused or being kicked out of parents house).

people will be able to rent those houses or optionally purchase up to 60% and rent, with the ability to purchase the rest in 5 years if they wish.

The village wanted this and they got a similar development done about 10 years ago.

if more rural villages did this and had this attitude, I think there might be the opportunity for more affordable housing and offer something which at the moment is a rarity.

living in nice villages up and down the country is out of most peoples price range, to rent and certainly to buy.

as for inner city housing, it's a case of finding land not being used and throwing up houses and apartments left right and center. I am sure the construction industry isn't booming at the moment and some well spent government projects would lead to many companies fighting for the right to take that contract.

[kidlewis]

Currently, on the Government’s own estimate, 52% of properties in central London are available to benefits’ claimants because they are within the local housing allowance levels. This will reduce to 7% under the proposed reform.

As long as clean and safe accomodation is available to LHA claimants then I don't see the problem. Maybe some children will have to share bedrooms (like I and many others with two working parents had to as young kids) but I'm afraid that ultimately greater choice comes with paying your own way.

Obviously no one wants to see families literally out in the streets but will that be the case, or it will it actually involve then moving into accommodation of a size and in a location that relfects their financial means? Small wonder we're broke when people argue otherwise.

children can share bedrooms and it's not classed as overcrowding, providing they are both the same sex. Obviously the size of the room depends on each case but that is what these housing schemes use as a rule of thumb.

[blandy]

On the housing thing, in the expensive rent areas, presumably one of the reasons for the high prices is that demand exceeds supply. If the Gov't is willing to pay whatever amount to house people in big houses, then the landlords will charge high. If the gov't then refuses to pay over a certain amount per month, then either the tennants will have to find the extra, or they will have to move out.

In the long term, if lots of people move out, demand will drop and prices will drop, and then there will be a migration back, perhaps? Market forces, I think the Tories call it.

For people working and not on benefits to see other people get 20 grand a year towards their rent myut be pretty galling - "There's people getting 20 grand a year to live in a big house in central london, yet us lot working have no chance of living in such an area, let alone getting someone else to pay for us to do so"

It seems the taxctics of the Gov't are to point out these examples and highlight it as "unfairness". Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but that's the message being sent.

They add in that almost every single pound the gov't gets in income and then spends comes from private business and people working in the private sector. it's probably around 90%+ of the Gov't income. So what they then spend it on, is funded by private sector workers and private business taxes. So they say "you lot with jobs in the private sector, you're paying for their benefits, your paying for the teachers, the nurses, the doctors, the soldiers, the quangos, the council junkets - do you think it's "fair" that people get XYZ?" and they know that most people will say "No it isn't" . It gives them cover to do what they want, for their own ends.

[LondonLax]

Currently, on the Government’s own estimate, 52% of properties in central London are available to benefits’ claimants because they are within the local housing allowance levels. This will reduce to 7% under the proposed reform.

As long as clean and safe accomodation is available to LHA claimants then I don't see the problem. Maybe some children will have to share bedrooms (like I and many others with two working parents had to as young kids) but I'm afraid that ultimately greater choice comes with paying your own way.

Obviously no one wants to see families literally out in the streets but will that be the case, or it will it actually involve then moving into accommodation of a size and in a location that relfects their financial means? Small wonder we're broke when people argue otherwise.

They already do share bedrooms dude, the council standard is two children per room plus babies who don't count in the number.

[snowychap]

Unfortunately with these new rules your average house will not be covered up to its full rent value so chances are you lose that as well and have to move out and most likely move out of London altogether.

Add to that the proposed change in social housing rents to intermediary rates - though they (Tory and faux Tory politicians) have been at pains to point out that this will be a decision for social landlords and, as this will be their main (or only?) source of funds for building new social housing (or repaying the loans that they'll have to take out to do this), they seem to be firmly setting these social landlords (councils and housing associations) up to take all of the flak if the building 'targets' are not met.

All of this new policy is to, apparently, reduce the spend on housing benefit though Clegg appeared to very dismissively say that he was fine with the increased social rents being covered by housing benefit increases.

[snowychap]

For people working and not on benefits...

In July 2010, there were 679,730 people in receipt of HB who were working.

In July 2010, there were 1.278m people over the age of 65 who were in receipt of HB.

[kidlewis]

On the housing thing, in the expensive rent areas, presumably one of the reasons for the high prices is that demand exceeds supply. If the Gov't is willing to pay whatever amount to house people in big houses, then the landlords will charge high. If the gov't then refuses to pay over a certain amount per month, then either the tennants will have to find the extra, or they will have to move out.

Regardless of these changes Demand will always exceed Supply when it comes to central London.

even if they went door to door turfing every HB tennant onto the street, those houses would be full in a matter of weeks.

London is a rule unto itself when it comes to property and their prices.

[blandy]

For people working and not on benefits...

In July 2010, there were 679,730 people in receipt of HB who were working.

In July 2010, there were 1.278m people over the age of 65 who were in receipt of HB.

I don't get the point of that post, that quote of stats. People working and not on benefits number 10s of millions. Lots of them will be inclined to either vote Troy, or will have sympathy with some of the Tory policies and the message being sent, in football chant terms, if you like "we pay your benefits". The govt is talking to these millions and saying "we don't think it's fair that you work 40 hours a week, take home 25 grand a year, on average, and pay your taxes, which then get spent on paying more than 20 grand a year to people who get their house for free. Do you agree with us?"

Like it or not, plenty of them do agree. They see their pay being frozen, their jobs under threat, their familis making cutbacks, and they see (or are led to believe) that there's a whole swathe of people who have never worked, could work, but choose not to, because it's "cushy" to live off the state as a lifestyle choice. I'm not talking about people who genuinely can't work.

For al lthat it's right to point out that if there are no jobs in an area...etc.

There are allso cases where there are vacancies and there are lifestyle benefit claimants. The post Risso made above, carries a lot of weight with a lot of people.

[snowychap]

As long as clean and safe accomodation is available to LHA claimants then I don't see the problem.

Often it isn't, though.

The previous lot were intending to try and regulate private landlords (in some way - probably 'light touch') but that nice Mr Shapps said that they had decided not to do this as the vast majority of private tenants (who they asked, we don't know - it's one of those bizarre claims that people make) apparently had no problem with their landlords.

I'm not sure how much difference it would have made, anyway. For those decent private landlords, it would have likely just created an extra burden; for the ones who disregard current legislation (e.g. gas safety certificates), they would have largely continued as they were. The existence of the latter group is helped by the lack of social housing stock (as this puts pressure on local authorities not to prosecute bad private landlords but to 'work with them' and that generally means let them carry on) and environmental health departments which seemingly couldn't cope with their workload (at least that goes for my local one). These are both situations which are unlikely to see much of an improvement.

[Demitri_C]

i agree with the cut if your unemployed for longer than a year

but the housing hmm think that is abit harsh. maybe 30,000 should be the figure

[snowychap]

I don't get the point of that post, that quote of stats.

It was to point out the mistake in automatically assuming that those who receive benefits are not working (and of a working age), not a mistake that you were necessarily making but one which is often the background for this debate.

There are all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances in receipt of housing benefit and yet the discussion is couched in terms of 'lifestyle choice' and 'scroungers'.

As you go on to suggest, policies are being 'sold' on the back of partial information, some misinformation and a few soundbites.

It's not anything new or unique to the current incumbents, obviously.

[Risso]

Edit

[snowychap]

Child Benefit Cut ‘Unenforceable,’ Treasury in a Flap

The government is struggling to find a way of making George Osborne’s plans to remove child benefit from those paying 40% tax work.

A Treasury source says the policy is “unenforceable” and likely to be ditched before its scheduled introduction in 2013. Another source at the heart of government says the expectation is that it will eventually not happen. Elsewhere I hear that it is “panic stations in the Treasury.”

At root is a problem that should have been apparent to those designing the policy, if detailed advice had been sought from civil servants before it was announced at Conservative party conference.

Child benefit is generally paid to the mother. She is under no legal obligation to tell the father that she receives it. The Treasury confirms this. It is her benefit. The father’s tax status is irrelevant. If a mother claims it there is nothing forcing her to flag up to the taxman that her husband earns above the level that Osborne stipulates should mean no child benefit.

Indeed, the child benefit was designed with the express purpose of keeping the cash away from men. Remember the argument of Barbara Castle and others when its precursor was introduced. It went direct to the mother in order that the father wouldn’t spend the proceeds on drink or gambling.

In the U.K. tax system households are not taxed, individuals are. The Treasury acknowledges that is the basis on which the system of personal taxation works. Potentially, this problem rather stuffs a flagship coalition policy, or makes it prohibitively expensive and complicated to implement.

How can the government easily prove the connection between mothers who pay no tax or earn less than £44,000 and the higher rate taxpayer she might live with? And then keep tabs on the situation on a monthly basis for almost two decades — with millions of taxpayers involved (moving in and out of work, having new children, some separating, getting divorced, finding new partners who may or may not be higher rate taxpayers, etc).

It’s easier to stop the mother getting the benefit if she herself is a higher rate taxpayer. It could be done via her tax code. But if she’s not, how good will the government be at establishing whether she is living with a partner paying tax at 40%?

A mother fills out the form for Child Benefit when her child is born, and then the money is paid until her offspring hits 19. If it wants to proceed, the government will have to scrap that simple universal system of payment and try to construct a mechanism that keeps track of what millions of mothers’ partners are earning.

This is what is causing “Thick of It” style panic in the Treasury and HMRC. I hear that ministers are considering (and tell me which part of the rest of this sentence might provide cause for concern) “a new government database” to try and match up mothers with their partners.

In theory it would enable cross-checking of the child benefit claims of mothers with the national insurance numbers, tax codes and addresses of fathers/husbands/partners. What could possibly go wrong? The government’s record with new databases is not great.

I sought guidance from the Treasury. They directed me to HMRC. Then HMRC said that this was the Treasury’s business. Asked about a potential new database, a Treasury spokesman responded:

“HMRC will need to check applications (for Child Benefit). They are considering the most effective method of doing so.”

I am told that an “honesty box” is also being considered on male self-assessment tax forms, so that fathers earning more than £44,000 can confess that the mother of their children is taking child benefit.

But again, the mother is under no legal obligation to tell the father. The father can simply say he doesn’t know and that his wife/partner won’t tell him. Is there a way round this? Not easily. Does the coalition have plans to legislate to force husbands, wives and partners to know each other’s finances inside out and tell the truth about them at all times. If so, good luck with that.

What are the government’s options “going forward” (in that terrible phrase of the moment)?

1) Scrap the policy now and admit it was a rushed job. This would be embarrassing for the Chancellor.

2) Stick to the line that HMRC is trying to find the most effective way of implementing the policy in 2013, and then quietly ditch it nearer the time (saying economic conditions have improved). Probably the best way out.

3) Plough ahead. Construct that vast new database and hope that it is cheap to build and police. Again, good luck with that.

4) Scrap child benefit completely, and replace it with a combination of child tax credits (or bolt it onto the forthcoming IDS universal benefit/credit) and transferable tax allowances. But David Cameron has expressly committed himself to Child Benefit.

5) Er… that’s it.

It will be interesting to see which option they choose.

Oh dear.

[TheDon]

i agree with the cut if your unemployed for longer than a year

Why?

When you're unemployed for a year does your housing suddenly get cheaper?

Or is this a case of "if you're unemployed for a year you're a lazy bastard so should get less to make you get off your arse to get a job"? Because there's plenty of reasons why someone can be unemployed for a year without being a lazy bastard.

Surely any cuts should be based on peoples attempts to find work, and those making no attempt should face cuts, whilst those people who are looking for work but for any number of factors have been unsuccessful shouldn't just be punished for the sake of punishment when they've done nothing wrong?

[Chindie]

On your last para, theDon, I imagine that if you put that idea to Cameron or Osbourne, they'd say something along the lines of

'The bureaucracy required to make such an idea work would end up costing more than we'd save by doing it, so it's a silly idea and caps and cuts are better to route out scroungers'

[Demitri_C]

Why?

When you're unemployed for a year does your housing suddenly get cheaper?

Or is this a case of "if you're unemployed for a year you're a lazy bastard so should get less to make you get off your arse to get a job"? Because there's plenty of reasons why someone can be unemployed for a year without being a lazy bastard.

im basing this on the ones who havent been on interviews and just not bothering to find work. there are jobs out there, the majority people dont want to do

[TheDon]

But the policy doesn't discriminate from the ones that DO go to interviews and ARE looking for work.

What about them? Do they just have to find a new place to live because their housing allowance has been cut to below their rent so now they can't afford to live there?