Housing Benefit Cap

[big-all]

I've worked out a way to stop lazy people getting £50k per year to live in a posh London suburb.

It's simple. No need for a cap.

Just do this:

If someone is claiming more in benefit than they could earn on the minimum wage - the Government should offer them a job on minimum wage. A guaranteed job.

If they refuse the job - they are no longer entitled to benefit.

If they accept the job at minimum wage - then they'll have to go and rent in an area they can afford like everyone else has to.

Simples.

you make the assumption that all people on housing benefits are unemployed
where as more than half of people on benefits that are already in employment but on low wages so qualify for housing and other help
remember even couples on 40k a year get benefits from the state

 

[libby lou lou]

If someone is claiming more in benefit than they could earn on the minimum wage - the Government should offer them a job on minimum wage. A guaranteed job.

There is a gaping flaw here, your plan requires a surplus of unfilled vacancies? Where are they going to get these from then?

Make up positions in the public sector just to get bums on seats (no pun intended!)

Think that's been tried by Nu-Lab.

Better get your thinking cap back on...

Can't understand why you bothered to even answer that silly question.

 

[Mickymoody]

WOW! The ethnic cleansing starts, lets clear the slums, and all the toffs move in!

Do people realise that unemployment is temporary, and on average every person will be unemployed on average 3 times in their lifetime? It might be a day, it might be your life..

 

[joe-90]

If you are working you won't get £50k housing benefit will you? Answer please.

 

[big-all]

If you are working you won't get £50k housing benefit will you? Answer please.

i am just trying to put some balance in a rather one sided debate

yes off course the amount off help they get is based on need and income
this can include many factors including how many children they have
if the wages are low enough most or all off the housing costs can be paid
the simple answer is no one knows whether the full housing costs will be paid until all the factors have been entered into the equation

 

[joe-90]

I work and would like to live in Westminster - but I can't afford to so I don't.

Why should someone unemployed live in luxury is Westminster when the average working guy can't?

Yet it's the average working guy that lives in a rented terrace in Hull that's paying for it?

Do you think that's fair or just?

 

[The-brickie]

Dont get me started on this topic....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...family-on-benefits-still-in-pound-12m-home.do

I dont blame anyone for taking whats on offer but FFS why cant it be a level playing field? Theres people who have lived here, paid it to system and maybe now cant get work, theres not much about and they get pushed back in favour of a family from the Trashcan or Somalia et al.

And its deffo £450 A MONTH, well for us it will be, everyone else will be given 60" TV's, cars when the lads reach 21 and probably driving lesson to help them intergrate, everything paid, council tax, water rates, no wonder they come here.

This post will probably last two hours

 

[joe-90]

This post will probably last two hours

I like optimism.

 

[big-all]

I work and would like to live in Westminster - but I can't afford to so I don't.

Why should someone unemployed live in luxury is Westminster when the average working guy can't?

Yet it's the average working guy that lives in a rented terrace in Hull that's paying for it?

Do you think that's fair or just?

we need to look at history to see why we have the ridiculous situation where we have a drastic lack off affordable housing

in the 80s thatcher introduced the "right to buy" this allowed tenants in council housing to buy there houses at up to 60% off[or there about]
at the same time councils where not allowed to use the money from sales to build new houses with the resulting lack off housing
this has continued through different government both left and right and still happens now but not so much

so who is to blame for the obscene act off putting people in expensive housing ??? not the tenants

we are all paying the price off selling off the housing stock

 

[Deleted member 105431]

I think housing benefit should be capped at £400 a month; if the lazy chav scum don't like it then they can always sleep rough.

 

[Terry2sheds]

I don't think that all benefits claimants are chavs, scum or unemployed and the assumptions made in this thread seem to be that they are.

Admittedly, £400 a week, ( £20800 per year ) is outrageuos and the only people benefiting are the private landlords.

With this and the £500 per week limit on general benefits ( it must be both, because the claimants of £400 rent would argue that £100 per week wasn't enough to live on, so £900 per week!!

This puts them way above average earnings, and that average includes footballers, judges, bankers etc, so there are millions earning less that average.

So, tax benefits, if they want average earning, let them have the deductions of the average person.

 

[The-brickie]

ITS £450 A MONTH!

 

[MisterG]

£400 per week for a 4 bed house, AFAIK.

Cheers

G

 

[ladylola]

This puts them way above average earnings, and that average includes footballers, judges, bankers etc, so there are millions earning less that average.

Just to clarify here, the average wage is a median average not a mathamatical one. That means that half the people in the country earn less than the average (around £25,000 a year is it?) and the other half earn more. If it were mathimatical and footballers , bankers and film stars were all counted along with shelf stackers and part timers we would end up with completey different figures.
As to the original question-. A lot of this benifit eventually ends up in the hands of private landlords i.e. we the tax payer are funding their profits (in a similiar but cheaper fashion to the banks) so why not nationlise the rentable housing? Instantly we've removed the profit loss along with additional savings in administration , and then whilist we are at it have nationlised shops to supply food and clothes to prevent the people who play the system spending their dole on beer and fags?
Micky moody is correct about unemployment being in a lot of cases tempoary. I'm in favour of a system of sliding benifits where payments are reduced over time , so that someone who is just unemployed doesn't suffer too much in the few months before another job but someone who is content to stay on benifits for years will see their income falling as the months go by.

 

[hi1]

There has to something wrong with a system that pays the mortgages of people who buy to let who will in due time sell their free property and make a large profit all on the back of the taxpayer.