Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
I would find paying 400 quid a week rent pressurising. I am apparently in the top decile of income. Why is it ok for the tax payer to be paying more than this to keep people with no income of their own living in areas I cannot afford to?
This will reduce rents, supply of housing will go up as there will be less 'Palace de Welfare' in high cost areas and demand will drop as welfare won't cover them.
This is entirely fair and appropriate. It is an insult to those tax payers who live in the 'burbs as they cannot afford the city that their taxes are paying welfare to cover the rents of people in precisely the areas they cannot afford.
|
It should also be noted that £21k is pretty much the median full time salary (before tax) in the UK. For the uninitiated: this means that 50% of the people in full time employment in the UK earn less than £21k. I consider myself firmly left of centre, but I cannot see any justification for benefits of that order being paid out to a family just because they have lots of children and live in an expensive area. It's a travesty...
Why should anyone be paid benefits so they can live in an area they could not afford if they were working? What incentive is there for these people to get back into work? As Ig says: it's an insult to the 50% of the UK population that earn less than that. Given the levels of deprivation that we have in the UK we really have worthier causes to spend this money on.