[ItJustMyOpinion]

Priti Patel looked in to the statistics and it soon becomes apparent why we need the Tory cap of £26,000 on housing benefit.

Originally Posted by DM

Nearly 1,400 Brits rake in £30,000 a year in housing benefit

• 1,380 Britons got more than £30,000 last year
• 360 received more than £40,000 and a further 110 were given over £50,000
• Coalition to bring in cap of £26,000 next year
• 'It is disgraceful claimants are being granted homes at such a high cost to taxpayers,' Tory Priti Patel says

Almost 1,400 Britons are raking in more than £30,000 a year in housing benefits, it was revealed today.

Taxpayers are picking up the bill for these individuals and families, with at least 100 getting in excess of £50,000 in annual rent paid for by the public purse.

A lack of council housing means that some are living for free in mansions where their neighbours are the rich and famous.

Tory MP for Witham in Essex, Priti Patel, dug up the shocking figures after asking a question in Parliament.

In the past year 1,380 Britons got more than £30,000 in housing benefit, and of those 360 got more than £40,000 and 110 were even given in excess of £50,000.

Working people would have to earn in excess of £70,000 a year to bring home that kind of income.

'Taxpayers will be appalled to know cash has been used to pay for housing benefit above and beyond what the average person earns,' Ms Patel told The Sun.

'It is disgraceful claimants are being granted homes at such a high cost to taxpayers.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz22NsFxG8f

What's Labours position on all this? They never capped housing benefit in thirteen years of power. This is a bit odd.

Miss Walker, whose children range from five to 16, was given the house because a new rule introduced by the Government in April forces Kensington and Chelsea council to fund suitable homes for large families.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz22Nslt86g

What's that all about?

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

Priti Patel looked in to the statistics and it soon becomes apparent why we need the Tory cap of £26,000 on housing benefit.



What's Labours position on all this? They never capped housing benefit in thirteen years of power. This is a bit odd.



What's that all about?

God, it's enough to make me regurgitate my porridge. That's far more than so many people have to live on.

[jassi]

Would I be right in assuming that its the buy to let landlords that are raking this cash in ?

[Nick1966]

Nearly 1,400 Brits rake in £30,000 a year in housing benefit

Why did you choose the words 'rake in', rather than the word 'receive' ?

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by jassi

Would I be right in assuming that its the buy to let landlords that are raking this cash in ?

Could well be but that is irrelevant to the main point. The buy-to-letters (a lot of them people who had their pensions wrecked by Gordon) are simply responding to a business opportunity created by over generous welfare

[kupo_nut]

Originally Posted by jassi

Would I be right in assuming that its the buy to let landlords that are raking this cash in ?

Yes, but don't facts stand in the way of a good rant at "benefit scroungers"

[Nick1966]

Originally Posted by jassi

Would I be right in assuming that its the buy to let landlords that are raking this cash in ?

Would I be right assuming that these claims were all legal ? And that the housing benefit benefit payments were authorised by the appropriate benefit authority ?

If so, what is the big deal ?

Perhaps the story could read "Benefit claimants receiving housing benefit payments".

[jmclaugh]

It merely provides an illustration of why a cap is required on HB.

[ItJustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by Nick1966

Nearly 1,400 Brits rake in £30,000 a year in housing benefit

Why did you choose the words 'rake in', rather than the word 'receive' ?

Err, I copied the Mails headline exactly, my only choice was to not come up with a headline of my own. I only do that if I can think of a better one, a more appropriate one, or the original articles headline was rubbish.

I was thinking about, 'Why the housing benefit cap was necessary", but I thought I would use that in my opening paragraph instead. Hope that helps.

[Nick1966]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

It merely provides an illustration of why a cap is required on HB.

Why are we only capping housing benefit payment ?

Should we both cap housing benefit payment and the rents too which this benefit covers ?

[Nick1966]

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

Err, I copied the Mails headline exactly, my only choice was to not come up with a headline of my own.

The Daily Mail choice of 'rake in' rather than 'receive' gives the impression they have an axe to grind, rather than news to share.

Thus, this Daily Mail story can safely be ignored.

[ItJustMyOpinion]

I still don't see why the government is forcing councils to house large families. Have they never heard of bunk beds?

BTW: Weren't Labour initially against this, until they checked their private polling I think I read somewhere.

[Nick1966]

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

I still don't see why the government is forcing councils to house large families. Have they never heard of bunk beds?

I thought about this.

As a possible solution to the UK housing shortage, more of us could dwell in dormitory style accommodation.

Judging by an article I read in the Economist, this is already happening in parts of east London.

[nomad2king]

If this is because of a rule introduced in April of this year, how come there are many similar cases long before then?

It was Labour that introduced LHA which allows people to move into an area and claim on the basis of the rent levels for that area. This is not about people who normally reside in that area and become unemployed, but people who deliberately move into an expensive area knowing that the rent will be covered as they have no intention of becoming employed, This also conveniently(and almost certainly coincidently) helps the owner of the vacant property. Why go to all the hassle and expense of moving? How do they find out about the vacant properties in an expensive area that are available for (certain) large families on benefits.

[Nick1966]

Originally Posted by nomad2king

people who deliberately move into an expensive area knowing that the rent will be covered as they have no intention of becoming employed, .

Such people will be disqualified from receiving housing benefit.

If you are not actively seeking work, the Job Centre will not pay you job seeker's allowance. And if your claim for job seeker's allowance is turned down, you will aslo not receive housing benefit.

I speak from experience at the Job Centre.

[psionic]

Originally Posted by jassi

Would I be right in assuming that its the buy to let landlords that are raking this cash in ?

This ^

[ShaunIOW]

Two points:

1. It's the landlords raking it in and not the claiments
2. The quote mentions the amount working people would have to earn - but couldn't those getting the housing benefits also be working people albit on low wages so needing government top-ups to subsidise the businesses they work for? In which case it's not just landlords but local businesses raking it in.

[PLAN9FAN]

Anyone who gets anywhere near that amount of housing benefit (if they are out of work which is highly likely) has no incentive to get a job do they?

If they get a job then housing benefits are cut and then instead of the decent pad they're currently living in they'll have to look for something within their price range. Like people who have full-time jobs do.

Its crazy that we pay out these sums. It just goes against everything the Welfare State was set up to do - e.g. a hand up to help them, not give them so much that they get the mindset that theres no point in working as they'll lose too much.

If the Sh&t really hits the fan and the country goes totally bankrupt would people living in these houses still expect taxpayers to support them to the degree that they are? I'm sure if the IMF stepped in its one of the first things they'd stamp down on - no ifs or buts.

Its better to cut down on things like this NOW otherwise if the debt keeps rising (like it is) there will be even a bigger shock awaiting people receiving £30,000 in housing benefits..

[nomad2king]

Originally Posted by Nick1966

Such people will be disqualified from receiving housing benefit.

If you are not actively seeking work, the Job Centre will not pay you job seeker's allowance. And if your claim for job seeker's allowance is turned down, you will aslo not receive housing benefit.

I speak from experience at the Job Centre.

How can you establish that somebody is not seriously looking for work? Why would they take the risk of moving from elsewhere(eg Coventry) to a posh part of London? Even if you are refused JSA, you can still receive HB if you have no or little income.

[bspace]

i've no idea why the state should be paying for more than three bedrooms (or four in some rare instances of medical need)

some parents chose to have to many children, it's their problem not ours
and before someone says - think of the children - well address that concern to the parents, not us
there are many things parents do that disadvantage children, why should this be any different
it's well past time personal responsibility was properly acknowledged

the other wider consideration is lack of housing in general and the stranglehold profiteering expletive deleted buy to let landlords have on some of the housing market
build more public housing, introduce rent caps

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by bspace

i've no idea why the state should be paying for more than three bedrooms (or four in some rare instances of medical need)

some parents chose to have to many children, it's their problem not ours
and before someone says - think of the children - well address that concern to the parents, not us
there are many things parents do that disadvantage children, why should this be any different
it's well past time personal responsibility was properly acknowledged

the other wider consideration is lack of housing in general and the stranglehold profiteering expletive deleted buy to let landlords have on some of the housing market
build more public housing, introduce rent caps

As I keep saying, forget virtually all other welfare reforms and axe Child Benefit for more than one child. Would take billions off the welfare budget and start addressing our overcrowding at a stroke. You want kids - pay for them.

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

Could well be but that is irrelevant to the main point.

The buy-to-letters (a lot of them people who had their pensions wrecked by Gordon) are simply responding to a business opportunity created by over generous welfare

I have to say that

1) I'm quite surprised you say it's irrelevant to the main point as they are exploiting the taxpayer.


2) Even if what you claim is correct does it give the people who 'buy to let 'an excuse to exploit the taxpayer ?

[nomad2king]

Originally Posted by ShaunIOW

Two points:

1. It's the landlords raking it in and not the claiments
2. The quote mentions the amount working people would have to earn - but couldn't those getting the housing benefits also be working people albit on low wages so needing government top-ups to subsidise the businesses they work for? In which case it's not just landlords but local businesses raking it in.

1. Are the tenants getting backhanders? If not, why are they needlessly spending money in moving house?
2. How many of the cases reported are where the tenant is working? Do you have any examples?

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by nomad2king

If this is because of a rule introduced in April of this year, how come there are many similar cases long before then?

It was Labour that introduced LHA which allows people to move into an area and claim on the basis of the rent levels for that area. This is not about people who normally reside in that area and become unemployed, but people who deliberately move into an expensive area knowing that the rent will be covered as they have no intention of becoming employed, This also conveniently(and almost certainly coincidently) helps the owner of the vacant property. Why go to all the hassle and expense of moving? How do they find out about the vacant properties in an expensive area that are available for (certain) large families on benefits.

social engineering and gerrymandering all mixed together. Typical Brown.

[blueisthecolour]

I agree that in general council should not be paying high rent levels if there are cheaper areas within a reasonable distance (say 10 miles). But then it would be ridiculous if we were forcing people to move out of family homes and having kids change their school just because someone is out of work for 6 months.

Also there is the issue that was raised at the time that a cap could create an incentive for families to split in two so that they can both claim the maximum for accommodation in their area.

An overall benefit cap makes no sense unless it takes into account the local housing costs. Giving a family £26k a year to live on in North Wales would be fine however in Berkshire you probably couldn't even afford to eat once the rent and bills are paid.