Under 25's to lose housing benefit ?

[Neil]

The welfare system, in my mind is crippling this country and encouraging neighbours like mine.

If nothing else this statement sums up this thread for me.

I feel the pain of anyone who has to put up with antisocial behaviour.

Housing benefit should be there to bridge the gap between lower end wages and higher rental prices (due to property increases).

Were to far down the road for an easy solution, but at least the issue is on someones agenda...

Any idea's how a fair and equitable solution for the entire population could be brokered?

That's always the challenge, isn't it?

I suspect most reasonable people see that the "welfare state" should be there to assist those that truly need it, but not simply as an ingrained component of peoples' existence that they build their lives around (and as a consequence, a perspective that may indoctrinate their off-spring as a right of passage).

But how to go about it? Increased regulation and scrutiny would cost - as would any big shake up - how to make the system still function and not punitive to those that need it, yet measured, limited and perhaps removed for those that abuse?

Is the real - perhaps unpalatable - cost-effective option to just make baby steps in trying to make benefits more targetted and less prone to abuse - or is the only real solution tough love? Because that's the thing I struggle with - most of these schemes seem likely to impinge the needy more than they address the abusers.

 

[highlandsflyer]

The welfare system, in my mind is crippling this country and encouraging neighbours like mine.

If nothing else this statement sums up this thread for me.

I feel the pain of anyone who has to put up with antisocial behaviour.

Housing benefit should be there to bridge the gap between lower end wages and higher rental prices (due to property increases).

Were to far down the road for an easy solution, but at least the issue is on someones agenda...

Any idea's how a fair and equitable solution for the entire population could be brokered?

That's always the challenge, isn't it?

I suspect most reasonable people see that the "welfare state" should be there to assist those that truly need it, but not simply as an ingrained component of peoples' existence that they build their lives around (and as a consequence, a perspective that may indoctrinate their off-spring as a right of passage).

But how to go about it? Increased regulation and scrutiny would cost - as would any big shake up - how to make the system still function and not punitive to those that need it, yet measured, limited and perhaps removed for those that abuse?

Is the real - perhaps unpalatable - cost-effective option to just make baby steps in trying to make benefits more targetted and less prone to abuse - or is the only real solution tough love? Because that's the thing I struggle with - most of these schemes seem likely to impinge the needy more than they address the abusers.

My experiences living in Salford and Hackney would suggest that is a reasonable post.

Of course I haven't gone back and reread from where all manner of irrelevance was introduced.

 

[IDB1]

most of these schemes seem likely to impinge the needy more than they address the abusers.

This is true in part.. the thing I don't have issue with is that a cap on what will be paid for a 3/4/5/whatever number house, regardless of area is being (or has been, in some areas) introduced.

Under the old rules we could have decided to move to Virginia Waters in Surrey and a house there would have cost a couple of grand a month, easily.. the government would have paid it.
Which is ridiculous.

Some families will be priced out of some areas, tough.
This will impact other communities, I hope those communities don't suffer too much because of a potential influx of 'benefit scum'.

 

[greenstiles]

''Some families will be priced out of some areas, tough.
This will impact other communities, I hope those communities don't suffer too much because of a potential influx of 'benefit scum'.''


So if a family who is working and have lived in that area all their lives are priced out of an area because landlords in the area raise their rent way above the average rent rises and benefit top up is not enough they are forced to move to a completly different area away from schools family and friends..........is that really ok ?

I guess that's just progress and development in some peoples eyes.

I must be scum then, cos since being made redundant at xmas, even though my wife is working and i have paid a lot of taxes in my life, i am scum for accepting housing benefit top up until i stop all my unpaid voluntary work with 4 charities and re-training to improve and get paid employment again.

 

[highlandsflyer]

What about those who are made redundant and end up being 'relocated' many miles from their family and friends, to areas of high unemployment where there year or so searching for re-employment may turn into generations of unemployment?

This is far from an easy fix problem.

Much more imagination needs to be applied.

Rent caps and enforced 'public' management of privately owned housing could be more effective.

 

[IDB1]

I must be scum then, cos since being made redundant at xmas, even though my wife is working and i have paid a lot of taxes in my life, i am scum for accepting housing benefit top up until i stop all my unpaid voluntary work with 4 charities and re-training to improve and get paid employment again.

I've been on benefits for some years, paid tax (and a lot of it) for many years before that .. normal people will not negatively affect a neighbourhood and wouldn't, despite the opinions of the ignorant, be regarded as scum.

The cap will be harsh for some folk, as highlighted in the last couple of posts.
But the reality is that the benefits system can't maintain Mrs. X and her fourteen kids in an affluent part of town indefinitely. And it shouldn't have to.

I rely on the benefits system. But I wouldn't expect it to fund us living in a £3k a month house..
In some respects, beggars really can't be choosers.

 

[greenstiles]

I don't know what to say next, it is very complicated at certain levels and there doesn't seem to be an easy fix.

At the end of the day putting myself in a private landlords shoes, i would want the freedom to do what i want when i want regardless who lives there.

More council rented properties would be good, but in a lot of areas the councils DO have properties sitting empty and say it would cost too much to get them modernised for tenants.........add to that a steady increase in population and a primeval right to bare children.........bloody hell !

How do you stop someone having children if they are determined to have them and choose not to work or even prove that is their agenda.

 

[IDB1]

That's the problem.. people expect to get everything they want regardless of their financial situation.
Like the country owes them their hearts desires..

And people lie.

Nothing that is done now will hit all the right people in the way it should and not affect at least some of the genuine folk.

We struggled like feck to get a landlord to rent to us, being on 'DSS' (the dogs didn't help but that's another story).. our rental history didn't matter.

Ironically, the house we finally got is a private dwelling slap bang in the middle of a council estate

The benefits cap is going to affect us apparently, could be by as much as £20 a week.

 

[cyfa2809]

Thats a fair old amount.

 

[IDB1]

Thats a fair old amount.

Yup.. but nothing's cast in stone yet.

Thing is, I kind of agree with the change they are trying to make (as far as I've read/understood it) so will just suck it up. Cut back where we can, sell stuff if we need to etc. etc.

Wrong age to be sentimental.. gotta live the best way you can with the available resources.

As long as we live within the rules/law, that'll do me... and we'll manage.