Thread: The state benefits system mega-thread.
View Single Post
Old 19-08-2019, 12:51   #2230
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter View Post
Whether someone on a low income receives even less money due to extra taxation, or whether they receive the same amount of money, but have to pay extra rent out of this money (which has not been updated with inflation for years) is largely irrelevant to the tenant in question as the net effect is the same.

Only about 5% of people affected have been able to move to a smaller property because they simply don't exist and, of the other 95%, about 2/3 of them are disabled.

I believe that there are measures that can be taken to make more efficient use of social housing stock and be fair to taxpayers and tenants alike. I agree that if someone refuses a reasonable offer to move to a smaller property that is available, that they should be financially penalised after a time.

When the overlarge rule for private rented accommodation came in, I argued to a committee that it wasn't fair on private tenants to treat tenants of social housing differently. At that time, private tenants were paid the full rent for 13 weeks to give them chance to find somewhere else, renegotiate the rent with the landlord or prepare to adjust their budget for the extra that they would have to pay in three months time.

Another idea would be for the stock of 2/3 bedrooms homes to be reconfigured to provide more, but smaller, housing for the growing number of single people.

It really is a nonsense that someone can be penalised for having two tiny bedrooms, whilst another with one large bedroom with a total floor space greater than the two small rooms put together receives no penalty at all!
I agree with your first paragraph, but you should describe it correctly. The measure you are talking about was designed simply to bring social housing renters into line with those in the private sector and was not designed simply to attack the poor.

There are many people renting from the private sector who are no better off. Their rents are sky-high compared to those in social housing and their security of tenure is virtually non-existent. You have said nothing about their plight.

Life isn't fair - never has been. Never will be. We have just started to emerge from the impact of a Labour-induced recession, and so it is no wonder that services and subsidies had to be cut. Now, as we emerge from the impact of that, hopefully we can find more money to improve our public services, but everything has to be prioritised. The NHS and adult social care need to be top of that list.
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote