housing benefit - how would you change it
Discussion
bar the usual scrap it and throw all benefits people in the sea how would you change the system?
ideas so far:
If someone loses their job then pay their interest only for up to 12 months based on the banks rate not an average one like at the mo.
why? if someone has been working then it helps no-one to chuck them and their family out immediately whilst they try and find another job.
problems: what do you do after the 12 months? base it on a repayable loan? transfer the mortgage to a gov bank? cap the payment based on what - average value nationally/locally?
any sensible ideas?
ideas so far:
If someone loses their job then pay their interest only for up to 12 months based on the banks rate not an average one like at the mo.
why? if someone has been working then it helps no-one to chuck them and their family out immediately whilst they try and find another job.
problems: what do you do after the 12 months? base it on a repayable loan? transfer the mortgage to a gov bank? cap the payment based on what - average value nationally/locally?
any sensible ideas?
Edited by petemurphy on Tuesday 10th August 19:50
Stop them paying above market value based on number of rooms, I have a 4 bed semi house - private rental value £900 tops, however the lovely people at HB will pay the precise amount of £1137 per month without even looking at it! Boils my pi$$
So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 10th August 19:58
digimeistter said:
Stop them paying above market value based on number of rooms, I have a 4 bed semi house - private rental value £900 tops, however the lovely people at HB will pay £1137 per month without even looking at it!
So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
if the person is already in the flat paying rent why cant HB just pay this rent? do they pay more? if on HB you should not be able to move unless downsizing.So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
Edited by petemurphy on Tuesday 10th August 19:58
petemurphy said:
digimeistter said:
Stop them paying above market value based on number of rooms, I have a 4 bed semi house - private rental value £900 tops, however the lovely people at HB will pay £1137 per month without even looking at it!
So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
if the person is already in the flat paying rent why cant HB just pay this rent? do they pay more? if on HB you should not be able to move unless downsizing.So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
Edited by petemurphy on Tuesday 10th August 19:58
digimeistter said:
petemurphy said:
digimeistter said:
Stop them paying above market value based on number of rooms, I have a 4 bed semi house - private rental value £900 tops, however the lovely people at HB will pay £1137 per month without even looking at it!
So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
if the person is already in the flat paying rent why cant HB just pay this rent? do they pay more? if on HB you should not be able to move unless downsizing.So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
Edited by petemurphy on Tuesday 10th August 19:58
100% of housing benefit payable in year 1 of claiming
50% payable in year 2
25% payable in year 3
0 in year 4.
Everyone falls on bad times from time to time, if the state is to provide a safety net (which is not unreasonable) then it shouldn't be indefinite, my plan means people can't just expect the rest of us to pay their way forever.
50% payable in year 2
25% payable in year 3
0 in year 4.
Everyone falls on bad times from time to time, if the state is to provide a safety net (which is not unreasonable) then it shouldn't be indefinite, my plan means people can't just expect the rest of us to pay their way forever.
petemurphy said:
digimeistter said:
petemurphy said:
digimeistter said:
Stop them paying above market value based on number of rooms, I have a 4 bed semi house - private rental value £900 tops, however the lovely people at HB will pay £1137 per month without even looking at it!
So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
if the person is already in the flat paying rent why cant HB just pay this rent? do they pay more? if on HB you should not be able to move unless downsizing.So my client instructed me to fill it with a clan of HB against my better judgement !
Edited by petemurphy on Tuesday 10th August 19:58
They used to send a valuer out but that was deemed to expensive, so now they just pay!
Housing benefit not an issue - I'd change everything else first.
Child benefit only for the first two living children going forward - it's not like you need to have loads just in case any more.
All other benefits are tied to JSA or incapacity benefit, which will be completely overhauled. If you aren't ill or seeking a job, or working, you shouldn't be getting money.
I say working because I would have all the other benefits tapered. I would expect anyone who wasn't working and didn't intend to in very specific circumstances (i.e. mothers with small children) to do something of social value when they could, even if it is just volunteering in the charity shop or doing some gardening for a disabled neighbour.
Child benefit only for the first two living children going forward - it's not like you need to have loads just in case any more.
All other benefits are tied to JSA or incapacity benefit, which will be completely overhauled. If you aren't ill or seeking a job, or working, you shouldn't be getting money.
I say working because I would have all the other benefits tapered. I would expect anyone who wasn't working and didn't intend to in very specific circumstances (i.e. mothers with small children) to do something of social value when they could, even if it is just volunteering in the charity shop or doing some gardening for a disabled neighbour.
Pay the mortgage company directly?
I assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
I assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
Jasandjules said:
Pay the mortgage company directly?
I assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
they already pay it directly but way over what they shouldI assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
I get HB so I'll add my bit!
I live in a rented house, I moved when I had a job, many years later I lost my job.
So I claim HB.
My LA tell me that my home is to big for my needs so they will not pay all the rent.
Fair enough, but what do they want me to do? Move house?
They, the LA, send out multi page letters every time I tell them about a change of of income. Because they link HB with CT they send all the stuff twice!
I don't want to claim HB but sometimes s
t happens.
I'd say that the most money spent on H & CT benifits is in the cost of the muppets at the LA's sending out pointless letters.
I live in a rented house, I moved when I had a job, many years later I lost my job.
So I claim HB.
My LA tell me that my home is to big for my needs so they will not pay all the rent.
Fair enough, but what do they want me to do? Move house?
They, the LA, send out multi page letters every time I tell them about a change of of income. Because they link HB with CT they send all the stuff twice!
I don't want to claim HB but sometimes s
t happens.I'd say that the most money spent on H & CT benifits is in the cost of the muppets at the LA's sending out pointless letters.
markmullen said:
100% of housing benefit payable in year 1 of claiming
50% payable in year 2
25% payable in year 3
0 in year 4.
Everyone falls on bad times from time to time, if the state is to provide a safety net (which is not unreasonable) then it shouldn't be indefinite, my plan means people can't just expect the rest of us to pay their way forever.
THIS THIS THIS50% payable in year 2
25% payable in year 3
0 in year 4.
Everyone falls on bad times from time to time, if the state is to provide a safety net (which is not unreasonable) then it shouldn't be indefinite, my plan means people can't just expect the rest of us to pay their way forever.
Jasandjules said:
Pay the mortgage company directly?
I assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
At present support for mortgage interest is paid direct to the lender, but it pays interest only but based on interest of 6.08% which will drop to an averaged rate (3.67% at present) from October. This means that for many people at present it pays the full capital and interest payment plus something towards the arrears so it's stoppimg some repossessions. It also only pays on the percentage of the mortgage used to purchase or significantly improve the property, so if Mr Pikey borrowed £40K for a RRS against the property the taxpayers wont be paying for that. I assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
I'd agree with the amount funded being added to the mortgage, but given how long it takes for an SMI application to be processed and how appalling useless the other mortgage rescue schemes have turned out I'd say if it's not broken don't try and fix it, there'll be enough problems once they drop the interest rate.
Andy_GSA said:
Jasandjules said:
Pay the mortgage company directly?
I assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
At present support for mortgage interest is paid direct to the lender, but it pays interest only but based on interest of 6.08% which will drop to an averaged rate (3.67% at present) from October. This means that for many people at present it pays the full capital and interest payment plus something towards the arrears so it's stoppimg some repossessions. It also only pays on the percentage of the mortgage used to purchase or significantly improve the property, so if Mr Pikey borrowed £40K for a RRS against the property the taxpayers wont be paying for that. I assume it is cheaper to pay someone's mortgage whilst they get back on their feet than to have them evicted from their house and then have to put them up at council expense? (I assume that if you were a man with wife and kids but couldn't pay the mortgage then the council would be forced to house you in the event your property was repossessed?).
Then, once the person is able to pay their own mortgage, charge them an amount which would be the same as if their mortgage which was paid by the state was added on to the end of their outstanding mortgage?!?! So that they repay it BUT not at such an onerous rate as they can't afford it?
I'd agree with the amount funded being added to the mortgage, but given how long it takes for an SMI application to be processed and how appalling useless the other mortgage rescue schemes have turned out I'd say if it's not broken don't try and fix it, there'll be enough problems once they drop the interest rate.
I would -
Pay rent direct to landlords.
Ditch being allowed to move to a property with a significantly higher monthly rent if current rent paid by housing association, unless there are genuinely no jobs in the local area. (In which case the approach should be to subsidise commuting costs first and foremost.) Especially ditch doing so for "lifestyle factors".
Provide an incentive for moving to a cheaper area, say allowing the tenant to receive a share of the money saved?
Caps on market rents after a few months. (i.e. outside the "safety net" period) Even if you have to work in London you don't need to live there - plenty of people commute in from the surrounding area, and I bet paying for season tickets for the people who do work is cheaper than paying for rented properties in Zones 1 or 2 for everyone.
If complaints are raised from multiple neighbours about a household on housing benefit, then cease to pay it. Especially a concern with newer part private, part social housing developments. The government should provide a hand up where necessary, but it shouldn't subsidise people to be a nuisance to those who've worked hard to live on the same street.
(I suspect the threat of losing housing benefit would be enough, but I guess you'd need a few "last resort" hostels for the people who genuinely can't exist in cooperative society.)
Pay rent direct to landlords.
Ditch being allowed to move to a property with a significantly higher monthly rent if current rent paid by housing association, unless there are genuinely no jobs in the local area. (In which case the approach should be to subsidise commuting costs first and foremost.) Especially ditch doing so for "lifestyle factors".
Provide an incentive for moving to a cheaper area, say allowing the tenant to receive a share of the money saved?
Caps on market rents after a few months. (i.e. outside the "safety net" period) Even if you have to work in London you don't need to live there - plenty of people commute in from the surrounding area, and I bet paying for season tickets for the people who do work is cheaper than paying for rented properties in Zones 1 or 2 for everyone.
If complaints are raised from multiple neighbours about a household on housing benefit, then cease to pay it. Especially a concern with newer part private, part social housing developments. The government should provide a hand up where necessary, but it shouldn't subsidise people to be a nuisance to those who've worked hard to live on the same street.
(I suspect the threat of losing housing benefit would be enough, but I guess you'd need a few "last resort" hostels for the people who genuinely can't exist in cooperative society.)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff