Wildcat Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 That would be the vulnerable who are living in a 5 bedroom property at the tax payers expense. My heart bleeds for them. Mine too. I also worry about the sort of future we are creating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 For an individual on £67 a week, £6 is around a 10% cut. For a large family in 5 Bed accommodation in Sheffield: (£212.76 > £139.81) the cut in LHA rate is around 33% the impact on the families budget will be far greater. Leading to them being forced to move in to overcrowded accommodation. Sorry, I thought we'd been talking about monthly amounts until that point. Okay, 10%, it's a bit larger. I'm struggling to see how it's unreasonable though. They're getting housed for free, it should be in a house from the cheaper end of the market. I find it difficult to be upset about people who have a 5 bed house paid for. If the cuts for the SSR, 1 and 2 bedroom properties were this large I'd be more inclined to sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Those that do are utterly stupid to have 5 sprogs they can't afford.You'd need more than 5 to qualify for 5 bed rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 I think you entirely misunderstand the relationship between HB and rental prices. You think that rental prices in London are high because of a high level of HB. The reality is the other way around, HB is high because private rental prices are high, reducing HB would not reduce the rents being asked for and would just result in HB being insufficient. I've not checked, but are you correct in saying that someone who works full time on minimum wage is not eligible to claim any HB? That's not what I am trying to say. People can pay as much as they want, but they must pay the minimum, the lower limit, the lower limit being determined by HB levels. The lower limit of HB levels will thus determine a few things, such as minimum house price. Lowering HB levels a little will allow house prices to fall a little, lowering it a lot would allow house prices to fall a lot and getting rid of it altogether would allow house prices to be truly determined by the market. Setting the level of HB is a way of controlling the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 The lower limit is determined by the market, that's how HB can be at the 30th percentile. If everyone raised their asked rent to be equal to HB then the 30th percentile would move up and housing benefit would be a race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 For an individual on £67 a week, £6 is around a 10% cut. For a large family in 5 Bed accommodation in Sheffield: (£212.76 > £139.81) the cut in LHA rate is around 33% the impact on the families budget will be far greater. Leading to them being forced to move in to overcrowded accommodation. I thought that you said that it was 40% just like in the made up story in The Star / Sheffield Telegraph / Yorkshire Post / Lancashire Woollen Press / Welsh Sheep Trader Weekly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Just because in the past and the third world people live in corrugated iron lean tos doesn't mean we should go back to then. What is evident from your post is your lack of understanding of social responsibility. You may not like people discussing their situation or that of their neighbours, because you prefer to think only of yourself, but fortunately some have a wider perspective and care about society as a whole. Indeed that is the sort of dialogue a civilised democracy depends upon. In your opinion you think I may have a lack of social responsibility..........the opposite may be nearer the truth,you will never know! However in the current state of play in Britain today I would not major on the phrase "social responsibility" although that plays its part! I would just prefer the phrase,"personal responsibility"...........that's where more of us need to get started! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas J Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Setting the level of HB is a way of controlling the market. The level of HB only affects (not controls) part of the rental market: generally, the poorer quality accommodation where landlords can expect to have tenants who rely on HB (in full or inpart). There's also another rental market, aimed at more affluent people and students , where they pay significantly more than HB rates: this part of the rental market isn't really affected by HB levels at all. Rent control was repealed in 1988, since when rent levels have only been limited to "market rates". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 I thought that you said that it was 40% just like in the made up story in The Star / Sheffield Telegraph / Yorkshire Post / Lancashire Woollen Press / Welsh Sheep Trader Weekly ? The impact of mode and median calculations is greater than I thought, but it doesn't detract from the fact there is a real story here of a change that will make life significantly more difficult for people on low incomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted July 2, 2010 Author Share Posted July 2, 2010 I thought that you said that it was 40% just like in the made up story in The Star / Sheffield Telegraph / Yorkshire Post / Lancashire Woollen Press / Welsh Sheep Trader Weekly ? you still got the popcorn :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.