tony de wonderful

What do you think?

Nothing like a bit of populist 'benefit scrounger' bashing to please the Mail readers.

Perhaps IDS should ask why rents are so high anyway requiring the 11% of welfare spending that goes on housing benefit? Maybe landlords should get a subsidy cap?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I think there shouldn't be a situation in this country where people are better off on benefits, than people are in work. I don't know exactly how that would be achieved, but I'd imagine, some caps would be needed, or significant changes.

When it comes to housing benefit, I can't recall exactly what F1 fan said, but he had some good points about councils building social housing again, the creation of jobs etc.

As it stands, I don't know how a cap on rent could be imposed, whether it should be or not.

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

Totally agree lisa. I also think that some of those one the benifits need educating. Having an ipad and branded food & clothes is not life its a luxury. I also think shops should increase sell by dates but reduce them as they get to 2-3 days rather then on the day like at present.

sovietspybob

iTrader: (3)

I think a cap is a good idea, living on benefits should be a last resort and a struggle not a life of luxury and free time.

I'd like to see a way to force people, young people especially into a routine of working life whether it be through compulsory voluntary work, education etc. Then the route into work is not a big culture shock for them having to be somewhere on time, dressed smartly etc.

Truss

iTrader: (2)

I think it's a great idea. Firstly, it'll only encourage people to breed when they actually have the ways and means to provide for another human being, rather than expect handouts.
Secondly, it'll discourage the migrants coming here for benefits, the benefit system suddenly doesn't look quite as good.
I had the misfortune of working in an absolute slum of Wolverhampton for a few days, and the number of mostly eastern european pregnant women about with partners who seemingly didn't work was astounding. Before anyone goes and says it, I'm sure there are many British nationals sponging in the same way.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

If most of their benefits is in the form of housing benefit then they should move/be moved, like the rest of us would have to.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Is the rent included in their benefits they receive?

tony de wonderful

Yeah, housing benefit is.

It's a cap on everything in total.

paulr

What about people on benefits, and worse off, but don't work.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

That's how it should be for those who don't work, no?

paulr

I dont know why the government doesnt.....

1. All benefits 6 month time limit.
2. All benefits 10% cut accross the board.
3. No benefits for anyone under 24.

Cut the defecit, and stop all this endless stuff about who deserves it and who doesnt.

David Lock

It's probably the way forward but not everyone who is jobless is sitting at home watching TV surrounded by luxury items. There are many bread winners in s,hithole areas that are trying very hard to get work. But it's tough if there are 100 applicants for a job.

I just can't understand why the gov't doesn't get on with a major house building programme. Just needs some ***** to get tough with developers sitting on brown field sites and taking a firm stance with the NIMBY objectors.

It's blindingly obvious that building houses and associated infrastructure would help the economy. Personally I would cancel HS2 and put the money towards house building.

dl

Tidgy

Instead of a cash payout, should be coupons for food and clothes.

beer, ****, tv and so on are not requirements for life, if you cant afford them tough tittys

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

i wonder how long it will be before someone claims the human rights card, when thier housing benefit is cut from 100 odd quid a week to a pound

Turbo Tone

iTrader: (2)

Agreed

Benefits are there to help people with the ESSENTIALS not the luxuries in life. Tax payers should not be paying for their Sky TV or their beer money or their designer clothes or their 42" TV's

CrisPDuk

The two obvious ones for me are;

1, If the rent is too expensive where they are, they move, simples. It's not like work is tying them to a specific location is it?

2, Pay child support on the first two kids only, if they want more, they finance them.

paulr

Interesting topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

According to this, only 3% of the UK is built on, exploding the myth we are overcrowded.
In the UK only 10% self build, compared to 60% in Germany.

I think it all comes down to our obsession with house prices which are kept high by restricting land. If the planning laws were relaxed (a lot) land would be cheaper, people could afford homes and building would increase.
It would however mean an across the board devaluation for every existing homeowner.

But, yes, very interesting.

paulr

Should child benefit be given out in food vouchers. Should anyone who wants NHS treatment be "required" to be a normal weight. Two categories of people wanting "handouts".

paulr

They may have kids in school, looking after elderly relatives nearby. Claiming benefits today, its worse than being a child molester.

CrisPDuk

The planning laws don't need relaxing, what is needed (as David alluded to in his post), is for the developers sitting on disused brownfield sites (waiting for prices to artificially inflate again) to be compelled to do something with them, or lose them to someone who will.

The demands (mainly from those same developers) to relax planning restrictions on greenfield sites is a scam, it's simply because there's more profit to made from greenfield development than brownfield

warrenm2

The demand for housing arises from the fact we have imported 4m people over the last 10 years. Stop that and the problem stops. No building on greenfield sites, no cost for building social housing etc. Anyway thats going off topic

The cap is long overdue. The benfits system is being exploited terribly and we simply cant afford it. The cap on having only 2 kids is already being proposed by Grant Shapps and is complete common sense and is well supported by the public http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fare-plan.html

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I hate to sidetrack, but I had to mention that I liked the fact you pointed out the need for associated infratrusture.

Because what I have seen, read and gathered from politicians and "experts" alike. All they want is more houses and nothing else.

My point being for the last 20odd years that I have known housing has been built with poor investment in anything that surrounds them...Bar out of town shopping centres, and maybe the odd Brewers fayre pub. Nothing done on the roads (bar the inevitable mini roundabouts on the junctions to new developments), nothing in terms of utilities (power stations, fresh water reservoirs, rain water managment etc ). And really nothing extra done to provide extra local jobs for the extra people moving to fill these new homes after deveolpment has finished. Promoting more long distance communting, congestion and giving very little in aid to stimulate local ecomomies in existing high streets.

What we end up with is huge developments of over-valued, over-mortgaged, characterless middle class boxes, built on the cheap, racked and stacked, over-stretching resources, and with residents who do not work or shop in the locality.

As a builder's Son, you'd think Id want to promte more building, and I would if it provided a benefit more than just giving those in the building trade something to do and actually benefitted the area.

No recent devolopment I have seen in the past decade in my localty has benefitted the area IMHO.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Boo hoo. How many private tenants/home owners are in a similar position but had to move as they couldn't afford where they were? There is simply no reasonable argument for the state to pay for people to live in desirable/expensive areas when we are broke.

David Lock

Exactly. So I would say to govt just f,ucking get on with it. It doesn't take long to build a house these days if they put their minds to it. At the same time put some tarmac down for access roads and a few more classrooms in local schools and a couple of extra doctors at local surgeries. JUST DO IT ffs. Plenty of decent engineers and architects around to sort it out.
They may get it wrong in a few places but they must make a start.

I don't think a few thousand extra homes will make a big dent in house prices. Just look at prices in SE, getting stupid and they need to be realigned.

dl

CarBen Fibre Creations

iTrader: (2)

I agree im all for it as its already been said it shouldnt pay to be on benefits so cap away IMO

Although that sounds like a good idea if it came into effect how many scraotes would you see outside of asda selling a £10 food coupon for £5 cash so they can get some beer. IMO this would drive crime up, that said something does need to be done because beer and tattoos shouldnt be at the top of their shopping lists.

David Lock

ALI, Of course you are right in much of what you say but it is very negative. More houses are needed and that does present challenges of course, a few extra houses per town or village would probably be a lot better than a big development, for example. One thought might be to do something about the tens of thousands of long term unoccupied properties. But that is a sensitive area if govt starts to take over someone's empty property - perhaps there could be a compromise but it will cost. dl

tony de wonderful

What about the communities that the government is always taking care to mention? The state has been paying people's mortages don't forget. The state has been keeping interest rates low to stop repossessions and savers are paying for it.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

You're equating paying a few quid less on mortgage interest payments, with wholly-subsidised living costs? Okay!

And in any case, many mortgaged people have savings too, it's not like they're not being hit.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Agreed and before anyone say's "They'll sell them for ****/beer/drugs" well that's their choose, feed your kid's or ****/beer/sky/IPhone 5 etc.

Paying the ******* their rent direct proved to be a really great move (NOT!). Many have a very skewed moral compass and perhaps it needs re-adjusting.

Leslie

Can you justify using taxpayers' money to pay people enough cash so that they don't have to bother to go to work?

Les