THe announcement of a CAP today ( £250 for 1 bed £290 for 2 bed etc ) will do two things :

1. All flats will go up to the CAP because landlords will try and max the value of their property. So the bottom rate for renting will become the housing benefit cap. This will put up the price of renting in the next 12 months to ridiculous levels. Many will be made homeless and end up seeing their rent going up by 30-50%.

2. Landlords who do not want to have people on benefit will have to set rents ABOVE the cap to make sure that anyone who applies for the property would not consider applying for Housing Benefit. This will help to keep "Chavs and Benefit types" out of their property or development.

I can understand an upper cap of 4 bedrooms and £400. But surely that was all that was necessary. To set rates for every property means that we now have a minimum wage issue. Since the min wage has been brought in because it is so low loads of wages have been reduced to that in the unskilled and casual sector. The min wage should be DOUBLE what it is at the moment and there should be a South East weighting as well. This would force companies to move North and out of the South East giving more opportunities to areas outside the South East.

This Housing Benefit decision has the same flawed ideology as New Labour's social engineering projects. It just wont work and will create ghettos.

I thought the Con-Dems were your darlings ? Trouble in paradise now BR ?

New Labour are at the root of all these things.

I like the Con-dems. Does not mean I think that everything they will do is great. I am not party political. I treat each idea on its own merits.

My view would be that London caps should be approx double those of the rest of the country.

Therefore, for instance a 2 bedroomed flat should be £200 outside the M25 but £400 inside. But even setting a cap will lead to rent inflation and ghettos. Boris is right.

This idea is wrong. Why not just cap the upper limit to say £400 and £800 in London for large properties. To stop anyone living in say Mayfair in a mansion. That is all they really want to stop. This is taking a sledgehammer to a very small "Daily Mail Reader" issue.

you are saying what I've been saying.

the only way out of the mess is spend spend spend. That's what the Oz government did...gave everyone money (except me) and said spend it...they spent and avoided the recession.

Encourage those who don;t work to get a job ........... ?

The benefits system is there to support people who happen to be out of work - not to allow people to live in homes that they could not afford even if they were in work !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BR wrote:
THe announcement of a CAP today ( £250 for 1 bed £290 for 2 bed etc ) will do two things :

1. All flats will go up to the CAP because landlords will try and max the value of their property. So the bottom rate for renting will become the housing benefit cap. This will put up the price of renting in the next 12 months to ridiculous levels. Many will be made homeless and end up seeing their rent going up by 30-50%.

The CAP is the price ceiling already - landlords know how much they can get and don't price themselves out of the market.

2. Landlords who do not want to have people on benefit will have to set rents ABOVE the cap to make sure that anyone who applies for the property would not consider applying for Housing Benefit. This will help to keep "Chavs and Benefit types" out of their property or development.

Nonsense - Why would a landlord NOT want social housing (and have his rent payments GUARANTEED ?)

A private tenant might lose his job next month and be living there - rent-free - for months before he could be evicted.

veritas wrote:
the only way out of the mess is spend spend spend. That's what the Oz government did...gave everyone money (except me) and said spend it...they spent and avoided the recession.

That wasn't the American experience .... the public paid-down their debts (sensible) and the economy didn't benefit at all (except that they were more in debt having borrowed to finance the tax credits giveaway !!!!)

Veritas .... your "solution" to the debt is akin to advising someone who is up to their neck in debt, and expecting the bailiffs any minute, to go on a spending spree with what is left on their cards !!!!

Housing Benefit is paid to most people on the minimum wage. So that undermines the argument. People who get income support also get Housing Benefit.

Rents and Mortgages have outstripped inflation and savings so much that if it were not for Housing Benefit millions of people could not afford a roof over their head.

Now the Government could do the easiest thing and actually CAP LANDLORDS to those figures ! Now that WOULD BE GOOD !!! then all flats to rent would only be able to be charged at that rate and so on.

Housing Benefit is probably paid to more people who work than dont.

Long term unemployed in ghettos are not the issue because those areas are the cheapest. This is about helping those who are trying to work and live in decent areas where the rents are going through the roof.

The last 12 months has seen around a 20% increase in rents in outer London and a 40^% increase in Inner London. This is because the mortgage market is dead in the water.

London will empty if they cap these benefits. It will mean only groups of immigrants who all work and are willing to share 4 to a bedroom will be able to afford flats and properties in most of London......

This is anti- English yet again and I agree with Boris Johnson that it will drive ordinary people out of London.

Dangerous policy and not thought through at all in relation to the South East.

BR wrote:
This is about helping those who are trying to work and live in decent areas where the rents are going through the roof.

Absurd nonsense !

If rents were "capped" then landlords would SELL their properties ... no more flats / houses to rent ! LOL !

There IS a market ... if someone charges too much - look elsewhere.

It is patently absurd to pay out massive amounts of money to let people who cannot afford such properties live in houses that those working could not afford.

If we followed your code then London would be full of dolers - as they would be the only ones who could afford the properties (as they are NOT paying !!!). The better off and the working would move. No one (with money / status) wants to live in an area full of druggies and dolers.

If someone wants to buy a Porsche ... and the dole money will not run to it ... should that be subsidised (to a ridiculous extent) too ?

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
the only way out of the mess is spend spend spend. That's what the Oz government did...gave everyone money (except me) and said spend it...they spent and avoided the recession.

That wasn't the American experience .... the public paid-down their debts (sensible) and the economy didn't benefit at all (except that they were more in debt having borrowed to finance the tax credits giveaway !!!!)

Veritas .... your "solution" to the debt is akin to advising someone who is up to their neck in debt, and expecting the bailiffs any minute, to go on a spending spree with what is left on their cards !!!!
No-the Americans handled it differently.

One big difference is that In Australia (unllike the UK & USA) no government has ever relaxed strict controls on banks, mortgage cos and so on.

Hence the banks and big business have not only prospered-they remained strong and tight with enforced government regulations.

The opposite happened in the UK & USA under the insane policies of Thatcherism / Reaganism which all US & UK govts took to with gusto in the fraudulent belief that 'self control' of big business will create jobs (one of the great myths of capitalism).

All that happened is that for the last 40 years profits have zoomed for the top 5% while the rest have got poorer in a real sense (flat screen tellys and ipods make people think they are 'rich')

You seem to want to punish those at the bottom (the majority) for the policies of succesive governments that have put them there and kept them there.

Despite what you and I might philosophically believe- I know what will happen...all these spending cuts will be wound back because they just don't work.

In The Know wrote:
BR wrote:
This is about helping those who are trying to work and live in decent areas where the rents are going through the roof.

Absurd nonsense !

If rents were "capped" then landlords would SELL their properties ... no more flats / houses to rent ! LOL !

There IS a market ... if someone charges too much - look elsewhere.

It is patently absurd to pay out massive amounts of money to let people who cannot afford such properties live in houses that those working could not afford.

If we followed your code then London would be full of dolers - as they would be the only ones who could afford the properties (as they are NOT paying !!!). The better off and the working would move. No one (with money / status) wants to live in an area full of druggies and dolers.

If someone wants to buy a Porsche ... and the dole money will not run to it ... should that be subsidised (to a ridiculous extent) too ?

wrong analysis.

The rort is not on the side of those being subsidised in inner London (and let's not believe the exagerations of a Tory housing minister or the Daily Mail)..and would you turn down a government benefit when offered ?.

The rort is on the side of all those property developers who have invested knowing they will reap the benefit of government subsidies in the form of housing benefit.

(of course in a perfect world where Veritas would be Ultimate Ruler all those hundreds of billions would have been invested in government housing...not only a government assett but a solution !!)

This problem is caused by government but you seem to want those who accepted their largesse to be punished..but not those who truly benefit...the ones getting property paid off by the taxpayer !

And that is another reason these cuts will be wound back as thousands of property developers right now are screeching into the ears of their local Tory member at the terrifying thought of a plunge in property values.

Can I just remind people that a PLACE TO LIVE is not a luxury item. It is a basic necessity to live.

Therefore, subsidy is needed because of the greed which has pushed "Property" into speculation.

I dont believe people should be able to make a profit out of property. A living - yes - but not the obscene profits that many landlords make.

Rented property should be within the reach of someone on the minimum wage. That is how the CAP should be set. If it is more than that it is profiteering. Simples.

How you can compare having a porsche and having a place to live is ridiculous. You cant live in a porsche - and a family would not even fit in one !!!

We need to start seeing houses as places to live - not capitalist money making opportunities. Everyone seems to have been brainwashed into the idea that we all have to make as much profit out of everything as possible. What next ? a tax on AIR ? on WATER ? oh....

BR wrote:
Can I just remind people that a PLACE TO LIVE is not a luxury item. It is a basic necessity to live...

So is food ... but we don't hand that out free, do we (giving those on benefits the caviar, which those working could never afford) ?

You have to live WITHIN YOUR MEANS - not expect to choose the priciest area and then expect someone else to have to work to subsidise you !

ITK - how do people choose the priciest place to live ? I dont see any evidence that people want to live in other areas.

The majority of people on Housing Benefit in Central London have always lived in central London for generations. Immigrants can only get jobs often in Central London where there are loads of hotel and bar and cleaning and building jobs - so it makes sense for them to live near these jobs as well.

So I dont accept the "myth" that people are using Housing Benefit to move out of poor areas to settle in rich areas. In any case - surely we dont want segregated areas in our society ? Do you think that segregation between rich and poor is desirable ? Do we want to see people also divided on race or religion or politics as well ? I want to see everyone living together and all areas being good areas. I dislike the "ideology" behind Council Estates and think Thatcher tried to break down the ghetto mentality with her policies. Thatcher tried to make it possible for everyone to aspire to success - and sadly Major - Blair and Brown have turned the clock back to the 70s and tried to keep the poor in sink estates.

If housing benefit provides a safety net for poor people to move up the housing ladder then why not ? would that be such a bad thing for society ?

Bored by this now - thread closed!