IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Removing housing benefit
Jayjay
post Jun 25 2012, 11:21 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



The coaalition plan to remove housing benefit to under 25's. How does this work in the real world? Do we keep people in childrens homes until 25?

They also plan to remove benefit of families with more than three children. Will this also apply to military families where the bread winner dies in service to his country?

Wondering what bad news is being hidden as this plan is so unworkable it must be a smoke screen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 25 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (Jayjay @ Jun 25 2012, 12:21 PM) *
The coaalition plan to remove housing benefit to under 25's. How does this work in the real world? Do we keep people in childrens homes until 25?

They also plan to remove benefit of families with more than three children. Will this also apply to military families where the bread winner dies in service to his country?

Wondering what bad news is being hidden as this plan is so unworkable it must be a smoke screen.


They are not removing it, they will restrict bnefits to 3 children. Removing housing benefits for under 25s will encourage people to do the right thing, at the moment we have a generation of people who expect everything to be given to them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timbo
post Jun 25 2012, 11:51 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 8,715



QUOTE (andy1979uk @ Jun 25 2012, 12:44 PM) *
They are not removing it, they will restrict bnefits to 3 children. Removing housing benefits for under 25s will encourage people to do the right thing, at the moment we have a generation of people who expect everything to be given to them.


Sorry I disagree Andy. Most under 25-s are very mature and responsible. Many have just come out of University or some other form of Higher Education and need to get onto the housing market. Surely those who are older should be EXPECTED to have more money, more real-estate, and those who are younger should get the help?

There are more young people who are actively searching for jobs than there are out of an equal number of unemployed people who are in their middle ages (say 40s and 50s). Yes I have seen this first hand! It's incredibly hard to go about being a young adult these days; first they say they are more stupid and lazy, reckless, party go-ers. Then you find out you need a 20% deposit to even get a mortgage plus a £40,000+ income.. I very much doubt many young people will get a house until their parents die, if they leave them a property, that is..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 25 2012, 11:54 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (Timbo @ Jun 25 2012, 12:51 PM) *
Sorry I disagree Andy. Most under 25-s are very mature and responsible. Many have just come out of University or some other form of Higher Education and need to get onto the housing market. Surely those who are older should be EXPECTED to have more money, more real-estate, and those who are younger should get the help?

There are more young people who are actively searching for jobs than there are out of an equal number of unemployed people who are in their middle ages (say 40s and 50s). Yes I have seen this first hand!


I see where he is coming from with the housing benefit cut, but I don't see how it can be implemented. Limiting benefits to 3 children should have been done years ago/.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roost
post Jun 25 2012, 11:56 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 360
Joined: 13-May 09
Member No.: 31



There's this new possibility they've brought in.

It's called "renting".

Apparently, you pay some money to a 'landlord' in exchange for the use of a property.
Its meant to be cheaper than a mortgage, although not necessarily the case right now.


--------------------
Roost

Welcome to the jungle....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 25 2012, 11:57 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (Roost @ Jun 25 2012, 12:56 PM) *
There's this new possibility they've brought in.

It's called "renting".

Apparently, you pay some money to a 'landlord' in exchange for the use of a property.
Its meant to be cheaper than a mortgage, although not necessarily the case right now.


yes, you pay your own money, not money handed out to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timbo
post Jun 25 2012, 11:57 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 8,715



QUOTE (andy1979uk @ Jun 25 2012, 12:54 PM) *
I see where he is coming from with the housing benefit cut, but I don't see how it can be implemented. Limiting benefits to 3 children should have been done years ago/.


Why not restrict benefits on those people who actually PLAY the benefits system and milk it dry? Like those who are families whose almost entire house is benefit funded, who have children; don't pay anything... If you can't afford to have children then it's unfair to expect the state to cover it.

Conversely, more support should be provided to younger people who are working hard, who have invested in their futures, by helping to provide affordable and quality housing (none of that council house crap)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timbo
post Jun 25 2012, 12:01 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 8,715



QUOTE (Roost @ Jun 25 2012, 12:56 PM) *
There's this new possibility they've brought in.

It's called "renting".

Apparently, you pay some money to a 'landlord' in exchange for the use of a property.
Its meant to be cheaper than a mortgage, although not necessarily the case right now.


Problem with renting is that, as I had to find out, a mortgage is approx £550-£600 a month, there abouts. Plus bills and council tax so realistically, it's about £1100-£1200 a month to run a half-decent 3 bed.

While rent on an equivalent property is normally around £800 a month all inclusive. Or if you simply rent out a single room or something, more like £350. The point being that it's a large chunk of what would go towards a morgage already.... Also, benefits are handed out to people who rent as well.

I had been renting for 6 years after moving out when I was 18. I only (fairly) recently managed to get myself a house of my own....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 25 2012, 12:05 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (Timbo @ Jun 25 2012, 01:01 PM) *
Problem with renting is that, as I had to find out, a mortgage is approx £550-£600 a month, there abouts. Plus bills and council tax so realistically, it's about £1100-£1200 a month to run a half-decent 3 bed.

While rent on an equivalent property is normally around £800 a month all inclusive. Or if you simply rent out a single room or something, more like £350. The point being that it's a large chunk of what would go towards a morgage already.... Also, benefits are handed out to people who rent as well.

I had been renting for 6 years after moving out when I was 18. I only (fairly) recently managed to get myself a house of my own....


A morgage is dependant on lots of things, my morgage in my house is cheaper than renting the same house but only because I bought it using the huge equity I made on my first flat. If I had 100% morgage on current house would be much more than renting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Jun 25 2012, 12:14 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,021
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Jayjay @ Jun 25 2012, 12:21 PM) *
The coaalition plan to remove housing benefit to under 25's. How does this work in the real world? Do we keep people in childrens homes until 25?

They also plan to remove benefit of families with more than three children. Will this also apply to military families where the bread winner dies in service to his country?

Wondering what bad news is being hidden as this plan is so unworkable it must be a smoke screen.


The coalition don't actually. Its something that the tories might like to push through if they secured a healthy majority errrr which they won't.
The subject of benefits in gereral tend to raise the hackles of those hard working middle earners that get no benefits and get taxed to pay for the benefits of some that don't actually even ever want to work. DC's just pandering to some of those in his party.
I don't think you will ever get a solution to the problem of HB. You'd need to address the social issues and mentality of those who see having a kid at 16 as a way of getting on the housing ladder. And unless you start a bit of social engineering by sterilising some parts of society you'll never resolve it.
Child benefit is something different all together. You max out at 2 or 3 kids and if you wany anymore you should be expected to pay for them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Baffers100
post Jun 25 2012, 12:29 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 13-March 12
Member No.: 8,653



QUOTE (Timbo @ Jun 25 2012, 01:01 PM) *
Problem with renting is that, as I had to find out, a mortgage is approx £550-£600 a month, there abouts. Plus bills and council tax so realistically, it's about £1100-£1200 a month to run a half-decent 3 bed.

While rent on an equivalent property is normally around £800 a month all inclusive. Or if you simply rent out a single room or something, more like £350. The point being that it's a large chunk of what would go towards a morgage already.... Also, benefits are handed out to people who rent as well.

I had been renting for 6 years after moving out when I was 18. I only (fairly) recently managed to get myself a house of my own....


Is not the point (or part of) of renting, that you only need to find one and a half's month rent to put down as a deposit? So University Graduates, and anybody who is working and saving a small sum of cash can save the £1200 or so required for a rental deposit much quicker than the £25k or so needed for a deposit on a mortgage?

I rented a "executive" 2 bedroom flat in Newbury for £795 per month. Why would somebody under 25 need 3 bedrooms? You can't sublet so presumably they have kids? In this case it is not the responsibility for the parent to make sure they can provide for their children before having them, as opposed to relying on the benefit system and council housing?

I would have thought not having housing benefit at 25 or under is an incentive to get your act in gear and get your own (private) place, renting or otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Jun 25 2012, 02:28 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



Apart from the few who genuinely can't live in the parental home for whatever reason, what is wrong with under-25's living with their parents rent-free and contributing what they can, until they are able to pay for their own accommodation? It's how it always used to work. Why should the taxpayer subsidise those who want their own place just because they want to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 25 2012, 02:44 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 25 2012, 03:28 PM) *
Apart from the few who genuinely can't live in the parental home for whatever reason, what is wrong with under-25's living with their parents rent-free and contributing what they can, until they are able to pay for their own accommodation? It's how it always used to work. Why should the taxpayer subsidise those who want their own place just because they want to?


I agree, in fact I agree with all the welfare cuts we spend far too much on 'benefits'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lordtup
post Jun 25 2012, 03:06 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: 27-June 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 164



Yet another piece of political rhetoric that has more to do with the ubiquitous spin than actual policy implementation.
The plain fact is that we do not have sufficient available , and I use the word advisedly , housing in this country. Now I am informed that there are nearly 1,000,000 properties lying idle for want of some TLC .Place that figure against the number seeking low cost housing ,or high cost for that matter,at the tax payer's expense and you don't have to be a genius to see the answer.
It is the right of everyone to have a roof over their heads if we are to be considered a civilised country,but how this is paid for must be sorted out .I would suggest by the monies earned in the workplace and not the taxpayer which I am sure we all agree with .
So what happens to the unemployed / unemployable I hear you mutter , good question and the one that the government should have addressed years ago not when the coffers have run dry , but they are all capable of using a paint brush . huh.gif


--------------------
Rem tene verba sequentur
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Jun 25 2012, 03:09 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,021
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (andy1979uk @ Jun 25 2012, 01:05 PM) *
A morgage is dependant on lots of things, my morgage in my house is cheaper than renting the same house but only because I bought it using the huge equity I made on my first flat. If I had 100% morgage on current house would be much more than renting.

It's MORTGAGE.
Sorry, breaking the forum unwritten rule but it was irritating me.
Maybe just because it's Andy. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post Jun 25 2012, 03:34 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



QUOTE (lordtup @ Jun 25 2012, 04:06 PM) *
Yet another piece of political rhetoric that has more to do with the ubiquitous spin than actual policy implementation.
The plain fact is that we do not have sufficient available , and I use the word advisedly , housing in this country. Now I am informed that there are nearly 1,000,000 properties lying idle for want of some TLC .Place that figure against the number seeking low cost housing ,or high cost for that matter,at the tax payer's expense and you don't have to be a genius to see the answer.
It is the right of everyone to have a roof over their heads if we are to be considered a civilised country,but how this is paid for must be sorted out .I would suggest by the monies earned in the workplace and not the taxpayer which I am sure we all agree with .
So what happens to the unemployed / unemployable I hear you mutter , good question and the one that the government should have addressed years ago not when the coffers have run dry , but they are all capable of using a paint brush . huh.gif


It is not just being removed from the unemployed, but from everyone under 25. How would you advise a youngster working a 40 hour week and earning £4.98 an hour?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 25 2012, 03:53 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (Jayjay @ Jun 25 2012, 04:34 PM) *
It is not just being removed from the unemployed, but from everyone under 25. How would you advise a youngster working a 40 hour week and earning £4.98 an hour?


As long as their are exceptions, I think it could work pretty well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Jun 25 2012, 04:04 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,927
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



Nobody should be allowed to own more than one home. That way there would be more hushing stock, and rents would be cheaper enabling people to save whilst they rent as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy1979uk
post Jun 25 2012, 04:10 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 18-April 12
Member No.: 8,697



QUOTE (Strafin @ Jun 25 2012, 05:04 PM) *
Nobody should be allowed to own more than one home. That way there would be more hushing stock, and rents would be cheaper enabling people to save whilst they rent as well.


Why cannot buy another house and have a buy to let ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Newbelly
post Jun 25 2012, 04:25 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 389
Joined: 23-March 12
Member No.: 8,669



QUOTE (Strafin @ Jun 25 2012, 05:04 PM) *
Nobody should be allowed to own more than one home. That way there would be more hushing stock, and rents would be cheaper enabling people to save whilst they rent as well.


How on earth could that work? Apart from the legal issues as to definition, people could use trusts, companies or other family members to buy/own property.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th November 2019 - 02:43 PM