UKRM Court of Common Sense

OK, I'm having a knee-jerk reaction here. UKRM has a habit of offering
the "other" view. So:

The government is proposing to cap housing benefit. I am hearing the
argument that this means that some families will not be able to afford
to live where they live now, since the capped benefit will not fund it.

Well, there are places I would quite like to live. But I can't afford to
(they're too expensive, or there's no work there).

So, the knee-jerk reaction is "Tough. Deal with it. Go live somewhere
you can afford to.".

Counter-arguments?

 

How about a hybrid option.

Take the portion of housing benefit going into the hands of private
landlords, use it to build new council housing.

This bursts the government funded buy to let bubble, possibly helps to
drop general rent costs, creates a new pool of government owned houses
that prop up the building industry during a recession.

 

I think one of the big issues, especially when looking at, say, London,
is that there's a demand for low paid workers in shops / sweeping
streets etc., but if you cap housing benefit, the workers can't afford
to live there.

So, is there any net benefit? - or are we just going to swap their
housing benefit for other benefits when they're forced to move away from
where the jobs are?

 

The dole scum from the inner cities will start polluting the pleasant
environs of Surrey

 

Not a counter-argument, but it sounds a lot easier in theory than in
practice. In fact for many it just won't happen without help.

 

The people won't go to another area. They have roots e.g grand-parents look
after kids whilst they go to stack shelves in Tesco. Their kids go to a
nice school and stand a chance of getting into university so they move
outside the benefit system.

People will become homeless, rock up to the housing dept. and be given B&B
accommodation. Some London councils are already block booking the B&Bs in
anticipation. This will just move the cost from one local authority budget
to another. Instead of buy-to-let landlords raking it in, it will be B&B
owners.

As ginge identifies, until the structural issue of affordable housing is
addressed, this will continue to be a political hot potato.

We fucked up a generation ago by letting Thatcher in and selling off a huge
proportion of social housing. The financial costs are coming home to roost.
The chattering classes sitting in former council houses now worth 600k are
going to be squeezed a bit. Tough deal.

 

So the demand isn't met unless the workers are paid enough not to need
housing benefit. Tough shit on those making the demand.

 

1. In some cases people with low paid jobs will be forced to move to areas
where there are no jobs at all. The savings in their housing benefit will
be vastly exceeded by the benfits that will then need to be paid to them and
their families.

2. Some of the affected people will be pensioners who have lived in their
rented properties for years. Inflated house prices have forced up rents to
a level that they now can't afford. Moving somewhere cheaper where you
don't know anybody is likely to be a bit of a challenge for, say, the 80
plus year olds. Some independent-living pensioners are likely to end up
being accommodated in nursing homes at much greater expense that their
housing benefit. Oh, and BTW - don't be fooled by the £140 a week pension
that is being touted in the papers. By the time that comes in to effect in
2015 it will represent a cut for many after the increases (based on
inflation) on their current pensions are taken into account. Anyway, it
would take at least three pensioners sharing a two-bedroomed flat to be able
to stay with the £290 limit and even then they would have almost nothing
left for food, heating etc.

3. The cap at £290 per week for a two bedroom flat will make many areas
almost "off limits" for the low paid with families. Currently the cheapest
2-bedroom flat in London on Rightmove is £390pw. The result is likely to be
migration overcrowding, exploitation, homelessness etc.

4. The supply of affordable housing needs to increase but, for example, as
a result of coalition policy Ashford, Milton Keynes and Southampton - areas
of crucial housing shortage - have seen 42,000 new homes scrubbed since the
election. Local councils in the South West have cancelled the building of
almost 60,000 new homes.

5. We are being told that the amount being spent on housing benefit is "out
of control". However, what has really been out of control has been the
inflation in housing costs - something enthusiatically endorsed by most of
the middle-classes who voted tory and lib-dem. They get their unearned
profit and the poor can go to the wall (or Middlesborough).

6. If we want the unemployed to get jobs, how will forcing some of them to
move to areas where there is no work help this process?

7. I note that one of the reasons you advance for not moving to some of the
places that you would like to live is lack of work. How would you feel
about being forced to move somewhere that you DON'T want to live - and where
there is also no work?

I don't support the current system for paying housing benefits. However, I
don't think that forcing the least well-off to bear all the social and
economic costs of changing the system is reasonable.

 

Is there no work simply because of the area, or because there aren't
enough varied skills to bring in different types of work? Mixing in
new people and skills might actually help fix the problem.

 

I think it might take more than that to "fix" places with high unemployment
like Middlesbrough. Anyway, the people moving in would tend to be from the
highly important but relatively unskilled end of the market. An influx of
pensioners, caretakers, shop workers, street cleaners, park gardeners,
classroom support assistants, care workers etc is not likely to revive their
economy.

 

How about grabbing back those properties and using them for young
families that can't afford to get on the housing ladder.

Obviously you can't just evict people and put them on the street but
those that bought them with massive discounts have to give them back
with the same percentage discount. If they can't afford to buy another
property in the same area then tough shit, move elsewhere.

It would get the property market moving again and would help reduce
unemployment in some areas when people have to move there then
commute to their job because it's all they can afford. Just imagine
having to move from a nice leafy suburb in Berkshire to a hell hole
150 miles away where you'd be surrounded by ex-miners who hadn't
worked since thatcher closed the mines.

 

not an argument, but a thought-experiment.

Regardless of the reason (be it financial or otherwise): if the
government, which you hadn't voted for, made a decision that made you
have to change where you live for some where less desirable - would
you be happy with that?

 

maybe up in Northern-Frozen-Land, but that's simply not going to
happen in Her Majesty's Royal South.

Councils have been, and still are, divesting in managed property for a
long time down here in civilisation.

 

I didn't immediately clock the sender on this post, but on reading
this bit it became obvious.

 

I have a Modest Proposal...

 

All part of the "poverty trap" innit? A change in policy designed to
drive people in to work in jobs that don't exist. Unless, they intend
to also start a boom in local suthority housing development such as we
have not seen for decades. In which case where are the councils going
to get the money faced with 7% cuts year on year?

 

None from me.

So they commute from somewhere they can afford to live and travel in
from. Like millions of other hard-working people.

 

Sounds ghastly! And I don't think there are any "suburbs" in
Berkshire. We like to think of it as "rural". It's nothing like,
mind...

 

and millions more not-so-hard-working people.

 

It's not as simple as just building new homes. Bracknell, for example,
has had two new developments of >1000 houses gone up in a few years.
Now there are not enough doctors surgeries, schools, infrastructure
etc. to cope.