Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW
"but if the rent is extortionate then they need to move"
"rents may well be kept artificially high due to the way the benefit is paid"
Why is your solution to these two problems lay with the tenants, why do they have to pay for the landlords greed.
Probably, in many areas of London, it is 1 landlord raking in these extortionate, artificially high rents?
If we have to make cuts and I agree we do, this is an example of "we are not all in it together" Why is this greedy landlord being left out of it?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Because the answer is to remove the market distortion. You have too much confidence in the heavy hand of government to put things right, when they interfere they can make things a lot worse -imagine if heavy handed interference dried up the supply of rentals. You may 'solve' one problem then create another. The market is actually a friend to work with, not an enemy.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Gary - note Howards post - that is very interesting and suggests the market is already moving ahead of events.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw;
in your world
do you ever come across some of these geezers that rent places
at very very high rents?
and little the geezers can do to get it reduced
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Thank you Barry much appreciated - I'll talk to my brother first before sending you his CV.
Gary: you could argue for any of those questions - he has had very senior and well paid jobs in the past, but since being back in the UK (about 2 years) he has struggled to get a job because most if not all employers have said that his overseas experience is not valid for the U.K.
Having read the Archbishop's argument (and posted it on here) it makes a lot of sense, Ross's posting raises similar points.
I think losing the will to work and losing any aspiration to better oneself through training and/or working is awful and there must be a way to bring that back.
Maybe making people realise that sitting on your bum and waiting for your cheque or bank transfer to come through is not an option and retraining and finding work from that, must be the way - for us, our children and their children - better role-models.
The trouble is though, that there must be jobs to go for, so creating an environment for employers to expand, not shrink, is a must.
Just been announced on the 6.30 news that we are on the edge of a double-dip recession, so that won't help with finding work.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Read what Howard said Keith. It looks from that the markets are behaving exactly as I said.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
About 50,000 families,mainly in london,will be capped at £ 26,000...............the rest of the 5,500,000 will be on the
basic..............some of which will be further reduced on April 1st. 2012.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
So benefits cap is only a London problem in your estimation Reg.
Are benefit recipients in Dover being overpaid at a £26k limit?
Explain.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would very much doubt that there would be pay outs like that locally.
rents and mortgage interest payments would not be in the same league as the london area.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
So what's the rate for Dover, Howard & is it in the South East region?
Given it is £26k cap.
Watty
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Paul.
They are receiving £26k because landlords are charging extortionate rents, along with BarryW comments that rents may well be kept artificially high due to the way the benefit is paid.
That is hardly the fault of the people receiving benefit.
BarryW's solution is to make the tenants move.
Of course you know what my solution would be. Stop the greedy landlord from using the benefits system as a cash cow.
There are always two ways to make cuts, people just want it done fairly.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
only someone in the benefits agency would have that info paul, i would hazard a guess at £.600 per month rent and about the same again in council tax benefit and all the add ons at the most.
certainly no more than £.15000 in total.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Gary, Howard, you may just have solved the benefits issue. A locally agreed limit.
Gary, Barry would not disagree with you. I THINK!
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have always thought that the benefit system and minimum wage set up was basically flawed as they take no account of regional differences.
60 odd quid a week jobseekers allowance will go a lot further in newcastle than henley on thames.
the minimum wage is useless to anyone living in london.
Exactly - and the public sector wages have always been slanted to accommodate, eg london weighting etc.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
We are having the debate that those in Westminster avoid. And it is cross party.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
it has taken 30 years of much bluster from the national goverments to finally do something about the problem of it being sometimes better to lay in bed until noon rather than go out to work.
it says rather a lot about our people that the vast majority prefer the work option despite low wages for many.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
yes paulw
this is one of those issues that yourself/barryw/roger and myself could probably agree on, but maybe not in the way the four of you may like to see it done
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
My understanding of housing benefit, is that it is set locally to take into account local valuations - it's called "Local Housing Allowance".
Dover and Folkestone valuation is set by the rating office in Folkestone and it is what local authorities will pay towards people's rent, so if the rent is above a certain level, the people will only get a part of it.
For example; my brother's rent is £600, Shepway (or Dover) will pay £51.30 per week towards that rent, but it is only for 3 months, then they may pay some , they may not, it's discretionary.
If the London Boroughs are setting their valuations too high or too low, it will of course affect their benefits.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
could i be as brave as to say lets find an alternative to the present benefits system
one that is fair and cant be abused
and one that makes someone accountable
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS