Benefit cap of £500pw loses legal challenge

[WeX]

Have you not been reading this thread. Lots of posts comparing the two which is ridiculous as I've pointed out many times.

 

but you are still of the opinion you cannot compare one family receiving £500 pw on state benefits with a comparable family earning £34,090pa.

 

If they both live in rented housing the comparison fits perfectly. If either family want more money, they need to limit their outgoings and to reduce their rent will mean a rise in disposable income for both.

[FACEBOOK]

but you are still of the opinion you cannot compare one family receiving £500 pw on state benefits with a comparable family earning £34,090pa.

 

If they both live in rented housing the comparison fits perfectly. If either family want more money, they need to limit their outgoings and to reduce their rent will mean a rise in disposable income for both.

 

Well I have to assume that the person on £35k won't be renting. Why would someone on £35k choose to throw money away on rent once they've chosen an area to settle in long term with children. Nobody is going to rent long term in an area once they've settled and can afford to buy so they can secure schooling etc. Anyone who was already on £35k in the past working in London could afford to buy and will have done so. They had the ambition, drive, ability and sense to achieve a salary of £35k and upwards so they will understand the very basic concept of house prices rising in London. if hard times come NOW, they have lots of options and equity.

 

I'm happy to compare a family on £35k today who say only rented in the last year against that of a benefits family who only moved to their home in the last year then it probably wouldn't be a huge disaster if they had to move as they've only been in the house a year. In this case you're not forcing a family to move their established home, roots and life.

[rickiethecat]

Well I have to assume that the person on £35k won't be renting. Why would someone on £35k choose to throw money away on rent once they've chosen an area to settle in long term with children. Nobody is going to rent long term in an area once they've settled and can afford to buy so they can secure schooling etc. Anyone who was already on £35k in the past working in London could afford to buy and will have done so. They had the ambition, drive, ability and sense to achieve a salary of £35k and upwards so they will understand the very basic concept of house prices rising in London. if hard times come NOW, they have lots of options and equity.

 

I'm happy to compare a family on £35k today who say only rented in the last year against that of a benefits family who only moved to their home in the last year then it probably wouldn't be a huge disaster if they had to move as they've only been in the house a year. In this case you're not forcing a family to move their established home, roots and life.

 

 

Why are you obsessed with people living in London?

 

I think anyone living in London with children should be forced to move elsewhere for their own good as children brought up in London will turn out to be greedy, arrogant and selfish adults.

[FACEBOOK]

Why are you obsessed with people living in London?

 

I think anyone living in London with children should be forced to move elsewhere for their own good as children brought up in London will turn out to be greedy, arrogant and selfish adults.

 

That's not ridiculous at all is it.

[L00b]

I'm happy to compare a family on £35k today who say only rented in the last year against that of a benefits family who only moved to their home in the last year then it probably wouldn't be a huge disaster if they had to move as they've only been in the house a year. In this case you're not forcing a family to move their established home, roots and life.

Your argument supposes that social housing accomodation is a (very-) long-term solution.

 

It should not be.

 

Like any other sort of assistance provided by the Gvt, it should be considered a temporary measure to help ride the circumstances, and from which one (reasonably adjusted, reasonably ambitious, reasonably aspiring-) person will want to escape ASAP by improving their lot.

 

Giving ever more (as an alternative) is simply kicking the issue into the long grass and burdening society in proportion as time passes and the cost of living increases. To the point wherein society says "enough, I ain't paying more". And we're pretty much there now.

 

Can you appreciate the issue, FB?

[FACEBOOK]

Your argument supposes that social housing accomodation is a (very-) long-term solution.

 

It should not be.

 

Like any other sort of assistance provided by the Gvt, it should be considered a temporary measure to help ride the circumstances, and from which one (reasonably adjusted, reasonably ambitious, reasonably aspiring-) person will want to escape ASAP by improving their lot.

 

Giving ever more (as an alternative) is simply kicking the issue into the long grass and burdening society in proportion as time passes and the cost of living increases. To the point wherein society says "enough, I ain't paying more". And we're pretty much there now.

 

Can you appreciate the issue, FB?

 

I'm shocked you would have that view Loob because it's so ridiculously naive. Social housing shouldn't be considered a long term solution? Anything else could NEVER be practical and will always be needed as a long term solution especially by families bringing up children with no other way of providing shelter. If you want to restrict social housing then the only way you will achieve that is if you restrict the ability for idiots to have children because only a terribly selfish idiot brings a helpless child into the world when they can't even look after themselves. That's a completely different issue. But once the child is here and the government provides them with a home, that should be it. Let the child have a chance, don't punish the child reducing their chances even further of them ever getting out of the cycle just because their parents are incapable.

[WeX]

Well I have to assume that the person on £35k won't be renting. Why would someone on £35k choose to throw money away on rent once they've chosen an area to settle in long term with children. Nobody is going to rent long term in an area once they've settled and can afford to buy so they can secure schooling etc. Anyone who was already on £35k in the past working in London could afford to buy and will have done so. They had the ambition, drive, ability and sense to achieve a salary of £35k and upwards so they will understand the very basic concept of house prices rising in London. if hard times come NOW, they have lots of options and equity.

 

I'm happy to compare a family on £35k today who say only rented in the last year against that of a benefits family who only moved to their home in the last year then it probably wouldn't be a huge disaster if they had to move as they've only been in the house a year. In this case you're not forcing a family to move their established home, roots and life.

 

Why are you assuming anything? I gave a simple comparison. The reasons why someone earning £35k would be renting has no baring on the situation.

 

Now please answer the question.

[FACEBOOK]

Why are you assuming anything? I gave a simple comparison. The reasons why someone earning £35k would be renting has no baring on the situation.

 

Now please answer the question.

 

What would be the point supposing a family on a salary of £35k have been renting for MANY YEARS but now suddenly find themselves up against it and not able to afford their rent? it's not realistic as nobody would do that so there is nobody in that category at risk. I can imagine a family who have been renting for maybe a short time on a £35k salary who suddenly find it hard to make their rent but then it's no big deal if they have to move. But not for many years which is the very real scenario now hitting the £500 pw benefits families. It's not a fair, probable or possible scenario. Forget the unrealistic what if's and focus on the real right now's. I'm not interested in scoring points on this thread, I'm concerned about the very real problems facing the families at risk who this cap is going to hit really hard when they have no options.

[L00b]

I'm shocked you would have that view Loob because it's so ridiculously naive.

You've missed my point, I'm afraid: social policies are subject to the availability of resources to implement and maintain them. Your posts suggest that such resources are infinite.

 

When demand (social policy subjects) exceeds supply (Gvt resources), you have to either lower the first (whether by changing qualifying goalposts or level of subsidies provided) or increase the second (raise taxes) & it's usually a mix of both. The Laffer curve then beckons, as recently seen in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and now France.

[FACEBOOK]

You've missed my point, I'm afraid: social policies are subject to the availability of resources to implement and maintain them. Your posts suggest that such resources are infinite.

 

When demand (social policy subjects) exceeds supply (Gvt resources), you have to either lower the first (whether by changing qualifying goalposts or level of subsidies provided) or increase the second (raise taxes) & it's usually a mix of both. The Laffer curve then beckons, as recently seen in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and now France.

 

The answer is not to cut people off at the knees. If they do that, have they considered the consequences. Stop it happening in the future but don't negatively impact vulnerable people right now already in place. I don't know the actual figures of those who are impacted by the £500 pw cap who are going to lose their homes.