Opposition grows to benefit cap

[turbobloke]

paddyhasneeds said:

I'm absolutely sure that if I can book a room at Travellodge for £20 a night by booking far enough in advance, that it's not impossible to set up some kind of large hotel/hostel for those on housing benefit?

Funny you should mention that. A couple of years back I was involved in a corporate event at a half decent hotel not too far from one of the London airports. We were advised not to get off at the wrong floor i.e. one too high. So some of us did. Location and imagination are all that's needed to work out the rest. There's likely to be similar arrangements for some sorts of benefits recipients, somewhere.

[Deva Link]

turbobloke said:

paddyhasneeds said:

I'm absolutely sure that if I can book a room at Travellodge for £20 a night by booking far enough in advance, that it's not impossible to set up some kind of large hotel/hostel for those on housing benefit?

Funny you should mention that. A couple of years back I was involved in a corporate event at a half decent hotel not too far from one of the London airports. We were advised not to get off at the wrong floor i.e. one too high. So some of us did. Location and imagination are all that's needed to work out the rest. There's likely to be similar arrangements for some sorts of benefits recipients, somewhere.

There are long-standing rules that say families can't be kept in such places other than in emergency. Single people under 25 (changing to 35) are expected to share anyway.

[rover 623gsi]

paddyhasneeds said:

I'm sure I shall be derided for saying this, but if you're dependent on the state to house you, why should that be a house?

I'm absolutely sure that if I can book a room at Travellodge for £20 a night by booking far enough in advance, that it's not impossible to set up some kind of large hotel/hostel for those on housing benefit?

I'm not trying to sound like a heartless sod, I just don't get why it's a right to have a house provided for each individual family by the taxpayer?

In terms of efficiency it's just nuts.

As rover says though, not sure you can apply a one size fits all as there's clearly a difference between someone who's fallen on hard times due to being made redundant over someone who has never worked or who is just playing the system.

problem with that idea is that there are around four million households that receive some amount of housing benefit - and I don't think there are that amount of travelodge spaces!

approx 75% of HB recipients live in social housing and 25% live in private rented accomodation.

Edited by rover 623gsi on Sunday 22 January 16:54

[turbobloke]

Deva Link said:

turbobloke said:

paddyhasneeds said:

I'm absolutely sure that if I can book a room at Travellodge for £20 a night by booking far enough in advance, that it's not impossible to set up some kind of large hotel/hostel for those on housing benefit?

Funny you should mention that. A couple of years back I was involved in a corporate event at a half decent hotel not too far from one of the London airports. We were advised not to get off at the wrong floor i.e. one too high. So some of us did. Location and imagination are all that's needed to work out the rest. There's likely to be similar arrangements for some sorts of benefits recipients, somewhere.

There are long-standing rules that say families can't be kept in such places other than in emergency. Single people under 25 (changing to 35) are expected to share anyway.

No idea about that, i.e. whether it was families, what if any level of emergency was involved, or indeed age profile to that degree. Just reporting observations.

[loafer123]

This policy is supported by between 2/3rds and 3/4trs of people polled because it is just.

It is not right that anyone should be subsidised to the degree that they are claiming more than the average wage for a family. The fact that the benefit cap is the average wage but isn't taxed shows how generous it is.

If you live in central London and are claiming that much because of your housing, you should move to a cheaper area. I used to live in central London and there are lots close into town that don't cost so much.

At the same time, council housing should be means tested and when you can afford to, you should move out so that the next needy people can be helped. It is not a free pass to a higher disposable income.

[paddyhasneeds]

rover 623gsi said:

problem with that idea is that there are around four million households that receive some amount of housing benefit - and I don't think there are that amount of travelodge spaces!

I wasn't literally suggesting put people up in a Travelodge, my point was more the pile 'em high sell 'em cheap benefits of doing things in bulk.

I was also thinking mainly of families who would be homeless without housing benefit, not partial or "top up" (for lack of a better word) benefits.

Don't misunderstand me I'm not suggesting that all LA housing is fantastic, far from it, simply that it's a bit of an odd model that 1 family = 1 house/flat just for them.

[turbobloke]

paddyhasneeds said:

1 family = 1 house/flat just for them.

Not forgetting: 10 kids = 1 London mansion just for them.

[Deva Link]

paddyhasneeds said:

I wasn't literally suggesting put people up in a Travelodge, my point was more the pile 'em high sell 'em cheap benefits of doing things in bulk.

Like workhouses (but without the 'work')?

There are people who think we should go back to that - the last Governemnt tried to introduce them several times for single mothers but I don't think they ever got off the ground (other than as part of the existing Foyer network).

[JagLover]

Deva Link said:

JagLover said:

Only in this country wouild it ever have been considered 'normal' for those on benefits to be able to rent houses that would be beyond the means of the vast majority of the private rented sector.

Is that true? I don't know, but what happens to big families in other European countries, when the adults are unemployed?

I don't know the exact situation in each European country, but from what i've heard we are fairly unique in placing families in such expensive private rented accomadation.

In France for instance social housing estates were built in the surburbs of the major cities, while in many of the southern mediterrean countries far more emphasis is put on staying in the family home.

[roachcoach]

The 26k is derived as the supposed average household income after tax.

Interesting, then, that someone on 42k pulls under 31k per annum back after tax. So much for these 'rich' single worker households


tbfh, the system needs a good long look at itself when the cap is that high, it implies people are well in excess of this.

[Bing o]

loafer123 said:

It is not right that anyone should be subsidised to the degree that they are claiming more than the average wage for a family.

Average wage? It should be minimum wage. I don't see how the UK is ever going to pay off its debts if you think average wage is an acceptable level of income for a non-worker.

[paddyhasneeds]

Deva Link said:

paddyhasneeds said:

I wasn't literally suggesting put people up in a Travelodge, my point was more the pile 'em high sell 'em cheap benefits of doing things in bulk.

Like workhouses (but without the 'work')?

There are people who think we should go back to that - the last Governemnt tried to introduce them several times for single mothers but I don't think they ever got off the ground (other than as part of the existing Foyer network).

If that's what you want to call it then yes, why not? "Workhouse" is a term that obviously has a historical term to it, I'd just think of it as bulk accommodation.

[Use Psychology]

Camoradi said:

rover 623gsi said:

the point is that if you are a working with a family with a household income of £26k you will also be receiving Child Benefit, you will almost certainly be receiving Working Tax Credit and you may well be receiving Housing Benefit (only one in eight recipients of HB is unemployed). So, you are already better off working than not working.

As you should be.

Perhaps we should also include the costs of going to work. I suspect for many working families these costs exceed any received benefits

this is a good idea, in fact where I live the costs of my employment are tax deductible. Approx 900 euros a year with no proof, you can claim more with receipts, for costs such as second homes during the week (closer to work), travel costs, clothing costs, membership of professional organisations, etc. very sensible I think.

[Hackney]

I completely support a cap, but - based on what I read in the paper today - the church opposition could have merit. If the cap is £26k per household or family, simply split the family. The church objection is that this hurts the kids as the most unscrupulous do this to make more money.

The most unscrupulous will find the loopholes, the question is how do we minimise those?

[Deva Link]

JagLover said:

In France for instance social housing estates were built in the surburbs of the major cities,

As it often is in the UK - it's just that there's a massive shortage of social housing, hence the need to use private landlords.

[davepoth]

Hackney said:

I completely support a cap, but - based on what I read in the paper today - the church opposition could have merit. If the cap is £26k per household or family, simply split the family. The church objection is that this hurts the kids as the most unscrupulous do this to make more money.

The most unscrupulous will find the loopholes, the question is how do we minimise those?

Workhouses.

[hornet]

The idea of bulk accommodation and the spin that gets put on it is interesting. When people talk of bulk accommodation for single mums or low income families, there are screams of "back to the workhouses!". Build the same complex as a warden assisted "retirement complex" and you get glossy marketing with pictures of smiling pensioners. Granted, the latter are generally private affairs and there have been some horror stories, but why not have similar setups for certain benefit groups, perhaps contingent on work placements of x hours community work a week? Would seem to be a step up from hostels and bedsits, plus you'd have economies of scale in administration, so less fraud and the like. As someone who worked really hard to even afford a studio flat, it just seems totally unfair that people (even a minority) are given accommodation I couldn't possibly afford without taking ludicrous financial risks.

[crankedup]

If the workers cannot afford the rents charged in big cities they should either move out to less expensive areas or the employers of the workers need to increase the wages. If they cannot afford the higher wage bill perhaps they can be seen as exploiting the low paid and relying on taxpayers to subsidise their businesses.

[rover 623gsi]

most people who receive housing benefit are either low paid workers or pensioners. 'Expensive' areas still need people to do the low paid jobs so where are these people going to live?

as for building communal buildings for single mums etc - the nimbys would have a field day even if you managed ot planing permission. I work for a housing association - a little while back we bought a large property at auction that had been empty for ages, We wanted to convert into seven bedsits/studios for young single people. The council granted us planning permission but the locals kicked such a fuss we eventually had to give up and we got rid of it. About 18months down the line it's still empty.

Edited by rover 623gsi on Sunday 22 January 21:11

[loafer123]

rover 623gsi said:

most people who receive housing benefit are either low paid workers or pensioners. 'Expensive' areas still need people to do the low paid jobs so where are these people going to live?

As I said above (I guess you must have missed it), there are plenty of cheap areas near expensive locations. In London, there are whole swathes of south London like Stockwell and the eastern end of Battersea which are both cheap and the opposite side of the river from K&C and Westminster.

I used to live in Kennington and within 200m of streets of £1m+ houses were cheap flats, often ex-council bought out under right to buy years ago and now part of the private rented housing stock and available to rent.