Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
It has never been just about saving money. It is about FAIRNESS. Additional savings will come from not having to build 3/4 bedroom social housing just to provide spare bedrooms for free.
|
Where do you get that for on given the enormous shortfall in social housing of all sizes?
Fascinating how interested the government are in fairness when it comes to those on lower incomes and welfare and how utterly disinterested they are in it when it comes to higher incomes.
This government should feel so proud. For all its work the housing benefit bill continues to rise and the majority of new claimants during this parliament are in work.
Some might say a fairer thing to do is invest in social housing and allow housing associations and councils to borrow based on future rents, bringing costs down and leaving an asset rather than continuing to shovel our money to landlords.
---------- Post added at 12:14 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
Where do you get the figure of "94% who couldn't move" from .It seems to me that you are assuming that everyone affected by the benefit reduction will want to move or even need to move .Some will make savings in their household budget to avoid moving and also don't forget that a lot of people in receipt of HB are working so may a more flexible budget to work with .
|
I thought that was the idea behind it? To free up larger properties for families?