News Good on ya Boris

[cHodAX]

Nice to see the wooly headed idiot go to bat on something well worth fighting for. Yes housing benefit should be capped but London needs to be a special case and should have a seperate cap, as long as it isn't anything silly like £8k a year or more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11640219

 

[Ch3tan]

The caps are fine for most of London though.

Haven't got time right now, but you'd have to go through it council by council. Greater London councils will be fine as the new limits are higher than what the currently give anyway. Inner london councils have laughable limits in some places, they give far too much.

edit:// Also you quite often see rental values dictated by housing benefit rates, a cap could just as likely force down rates in areas that are overpriced. Boris has gone on a rant without thinking this one through clearly.

 

[Marc]

So will the GLA/ London Mayor's office be coughing up the difference between his party's capped housing benefit and the actual costs of rent?

Or is it something to do with the fact he has an election to fight next year?

 

[ECA]

Nice to see the wooly headed idiot go to bat on something well worth fighting for. Yes housing benefit should be capped but London needs to be a special case and should have a seperate cap, as long as it isn't anything silly like £8k a year or more.

BBC News - Ministers criticise Boris Johnson over benefit comments

8k a year or more? So you're happy with the £20800 cap the tories want then?

seriously... wtf... 21k a year for your rent ? Go fucking live somewhere cheaper.

 

[cHodAX]

8k a year or more? So you're happy with the £20800 cap the tories want then?

seriously... wtf... 21k a year for your rent ? Go fucking live somewhere cheaper.

No no, I mean the cap should be 8k a year for any part of London. 21k a year is obscene.

 

[ECA]

Right, but under the tory plans the cap will be £20800, apparently labour thinks that isn't enough ?

Seriously....

 

[Ch3tan]

No no, I mean the cap should be 8k a year for any part of London. 21k a year is obscene.

You've not looked into this one have you Cho. Who is your 8k limit for? single bedroom flats? 3 beds?

Most London councils give a minimum of £650 pcm for a one bed on DSS, £850 for a 2 bed, and £1050 for a 3 bed, That's rises depending on what post code you are in.

If you think that you can get away with 8k or less in most of London then you are having a laugh, the limits are already higher than that. The proposed limits will simply stop councils paying more as rental prices get out of hand.

edit:// £1750 a month on rent may seem obscene, but it depends what part of London they are living in. The better debate is - why are people who rely on a housing benefit being allowed to rent in such expensive areas?

 

[cHodAX]

Right, but under the tory plans the cap will be £20800, apparently labour thinks that isn't enough ?

Seriously....

It is utter madness, if you can't afford to live in Kensington why should the state pay the bill? They should go to a neighbouring borough where the rent is gonna be 1/3 of what we have to pay at the moment. The cap should be £700 a month at most.

 

[Raven]

Its true that landlords set their rent at as much as they will get, its good business sense.

Those amounts are madness, 20k for a years rent??? Fuck me you could get a 5 bedroom country pile for that much round here.

 

[Ch3tan]

So you've changed your view from the original post the cho?

Cho the cap should be £700 a month for who? At that limit no family or single parent will be able to afford living in London.

 

[tierk]

Sorry but i think that most of the comments so far as are totally wrong.

I have been looking for a two bedroom apartment to buy in Lancaster Gate since around June 2009 and the the cheapeast one i have seen so far has been a shitty 2 bedroom apt on Gloucester Place that was on the market for 415k.

With the greatest respect how on earth are the people that brought those properties expected to accept rent coming at pretty much half of what one is paying for the mortgage? The rents are so sky fucking high becaue the prices of the housing is so ridiculously high in the first place.

So now if i have my apartment in Lancaster Gate and the guy renting from me loses his job and the housing benefit payments are, for the sake of argument lowered by 20% i must kick this guy out? Or am i expected to say ok fuck it i will pay from my pocket the shortfall in rent?

Doesnt make sense to me at all and smacks of real inequality and this whole idea of capping housing benefit in this way just seems to me at least to have been rushed and not well thought out.

Trust me the price of housing in Central London are not so high because of the amount the government pays in housing benefit and everything to do with the fact that it is a massively high demand area and every one and his dog wants to buy a house /flat upon making his first million. From tinpot dictators in Africa to business men from the Far East, first detsination....LONDON.

 

[Raven]

Erm, if someone who can afford to live there loses their job then I am afraid they will just have to downsize like everyone else. Nobody needs to live in Lancaster gate (for example) They do need to live within their means though.

 

[Ch3tan]

Central London is not the whole of London Tierk, I fully understand what the prices are.

I just don't think the state should be paying ridiculous rents for people to live in whatever area they chose. Move somewhere cheaper!

Like I said before, these caps will in reality effect very few people, as those limits are in excess of those offered by most councils anyway.

edit:// Also if you are a landlord then you should know your rental market. If you are in a high rent area then you set your prices accordingly and wouldn't be aiming at DSS rentals. In the situation you quoted, yes, if your tenant lost his job it's not up to the state to enable him to continue living in luxury nor is it up to the state to pay your high rent.

Renting is not risk free and a landlord that does not understand this should not be one.

edit2:// With the housing dictating rental prices, I was referring more to Greater London councils where this can very much be the case. It's very frustrating as an agent when landlords expect the full DSS going rate despite the size or condition of their property. It's profiteering off dodgy government targets.

 

[tierk]

Erm, if someone who can afford to live there loses their job then I am afraid they will just have to downsize like everyone else. Nobody needs to live in Lancaster gate (for example) They do need to live within their means though.

Sorry but i do not agree with you. If i pay taxes just like everyone else and i lose my job i think its a pretty big kick in the teeth that i now have to move houses to another area and what about the kids schooling amongest other issues? I still ahve the same GP i did when we first moved to London see what i am getting at?

Central London is not the whole of London Tierk, I fully understand what the prices are.

I just don't think the state should be paying ridiculous rents for people to live in whatever area they chose. Move somewhere cheaper!

Like I said before, these caps will in reality effect very few people, as those limits are in excess of those offered by most councils anyway.

edit:// Also if you are a landlord then you should know your rental market. If you are in a high rent area then you set your prices accordingly and wouldn't be aiming at DSS rentals. In the situation you quoted, yes, if your tenant lost his job it's not up to the state to enable him to continue living in luxury nor is it up to the state to pay your high rent.

Renting is not risk free and a landlord that does not understand this should not be one.

edit2:// With the housing dictating rental prices, I was referring more to Greater London councils where this can very much be the case. It's very frustrating as an agent when landlords expect the full DSS going rate despite the size or condition of their property. It's profiteering off dodgy government targets.

I was not suggesting that Central London as the whole of London but was using it as an example as it is an area i have lived in pretty much most of my life. It is also one of the most expensive areas to live in in the UK and the expectations of forcing caps on the rents in these areas will either not work at all or will just force unemployed people from these areas.

I am sure that better options solutions can be found but do not ask me what just yet as i am heading out of the door for a fancy dinner and will pick this up later.

 

[cHodAX]

So you've changed your view from the original post the cho?

Cho the cap should be £700 a month for who? At that limit no family or single parent will be able to afford living in London.

No, I just wasnt very clear. I support Boris saying that these changes cannot be allowed to cleanse London of the poorest families. The £400 cap in London would be a complete farce, of course he should fight it. I do support a cap no more than double that though and only for London because of the cost of living there.

 

[andeh]

No, I just wasnt very clear. I support Boris saying that these changes cannot be allowed to cleanse London of the poorest families. The £400 cap in London would be a complete farce, of course he should fight it. I do support a cap no more than double that though and only for London because of the cost of living there.

Except it isn't £400 pcm, it's £400 per week, ~£1700 per month (4+ bed property). Even the low end of the cap (1-bed, £250 per WEEK) should be considered excessive for most areas and perhaps par for London. How anyone can suggest this sum is insufficient to cover rent is beyond me.

slightly relevant:

Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this.
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1.The sixth would pay £3.The seventh would pay £7.The eighth would pay £12.The ninth would pay £18.And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I’m going to reduce the cost of your monthly beer by £20. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 .The seventh paid £5 instead of £7.The eighth paid £9 instead of £12.The ninth paid £14 instead of £18, and the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. I’ve only got £1 out of the £20 saving, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got £10!

Yes, that’s right, exclaimed the fifth man. I’ve only saved a £1 too. That’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!

That’s true! Shouted the seventh man. Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!

Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison, we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!

So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important, they didn’t even have enough money between all of them to pay for half the bill.

That’s how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes do tend to get the most benefit from tax reliefs and reductions. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. But do try to remember that it’s not always necessary to be solemn to make a serious point.

 

[Raven]

Hah. Repped

 

[Talivar]

Come live in Grimsby you can rent a 3 bedroom house for about £400 a month!

 

[Raven]

On the plus side it wouldn't be in that festering boil that is London

 

[Ch3tan]

No, I just wasnt very clear. I support Boris saying that these changes cannot be allowed to cleanse London of the poorest families. The £400 cap in London would be a complete farce, of course he should fight it. I do support a cap no more than double that though and only for London because of the cost of living there.

The £400 per week cap is FINE. £1750 pcm is more than enough to get a 4 bed house in most of London. It only effects those living in the richest area's of London, very few people. Some of which may have to move, or shock horror, contribute towards their rent to enable them to live in that area.

No more than double that? Are you serious? £800 pw so someone can live in the better areas of central london? That is an absolute farcical use or resources. That's £3466 a month in rent!

In most of London a 4 bed house is around £1300 - £1500 pcm.

 

[Ch3tan]

slightly relevant:

.....

Stolen for facebook, very good.

 

[cHodAX]

The £400 per week cap is FINE. £1750 pcm is more than enough to get a 4 bed house in most of London. It only effects those living in the richest area's of London, very few people. Some of which may have to move, or shock horror, contribute towards their rent to enable them to live in that area.

No more than double that? Are you serious? £800 pw so someone can live in the better areas of central london? That is an absolute farcical use or resources. That's £3466 a month in rent!

In most of London a 4 bed house is around £1300 - £1500 pcm.

800 per month, fucking hell 800 a week would be insane. I can't believe the new cap is going to be as high as 400 a week, that is fucking barmy, it is very large mortgage money. I don't see why we should be housing people in 4 bedroom places at £1500 a month either, it is fucking obscene. As I said before, 800 a month should be the maximum, if they can't find work in London then they should move somewhere cheaper to rent and try find work there. Fuck knows we have enough cities with work available and far cheaper rents.

 

[Ch3tan]

Then you aren't supporting Boris's view at all, you are taking the polar opposite view of what he is saying.

It's £400 per week because of property prices in London, rents are set at the going rate based on mortgage repayments. If you want 800pw for a 4 bed place, then you will cripple the rental market for landlords, end up with lots of repossessions and force people out of London. Increasing the rich/poor divide. Something you claim to not want.

You need to not apply your view on fair rental prices to London, because it's a totally different set of circumstances. At £800pw you'd have families (3 +) living in one or two bed places.

 

[cHodAX]

Then you aren't supporting Boris's view at all, you are taking the polar opposite view of what he is saying.

If the cap is £400 a week then I guess I am, we should be helping people of course but not to extravagant levels and £1600 a month is the equivelant of something like a £300,000-£400,000 mortgage. Thank god all London prices aren't that fucking stupid.

 

[cHodAX]

I thought rental prices in Manchester were bad when we hit £500 a month for run down two bedroom terraces, honestly ordinary working folk in London must be fucking sick with worry all the time trying to meet those costs.

 

[Ch3tan]

I have a 3 bed house in Thornton Heath, it cost me £212k. Going rate was £240k on the road at the time. Now this is just about South London. If I'd gone a couple of miles up the road to Streatham the same house would have been around £300-350k.

I'd expect rental of between £1000 -£1100 at the moment.

Now if you think £300-£400k is expensive for a 4 bed in London, then you are miles off. That's cheap.

 

[Ch3tan]

I thought rental prices in Manchester were bad when we hit £500 a month for run down two bedroom terraces, honestly ordinary working folk in London must be fucking sick with worry all the time trying to meet those costs.

Well hopefully this thread has given you some insight. Working/living in London is expensive, and I don't want a divide either, but people need to take some responsibility for their lives and realise they can have more if they leave London.

Given my current earnings I could get around £500-£700 in housing benefit from the government, and a huge reduction on my council tax. I don't because I don't feel that the government should be responsible for housing me. It's social responsibility that is sorely lacking in the UK, people move out because they feel it's their right, and parents do not want to take responsibility for their grown children.

Most 3rd party reference companies for letting agents work on a 3x earnings to rent ratio. So you have to earn more than 3x your annual rent to pass their checks. So let's compare two beds -

Manchester £500 pcm, £6k per year rent. Earnings would have to be £18k
Croydon - £850pcm, £10200 per year rent. Earnings would have to be £30600.

Now take the same job - you don't get paid £12k a year extra to work in London compared to Manchester.

 

[cHodAX]

I have a 3 bed house in Thornton Heath, it cost me £212k. Going rate was £240k on the road at the time. Now this is just about South London. If I'd gone a couple of miles up the road to Streatham the same house would have been around £300-350k.

I'd expect rental of between £1000 -£1100 at the moment.

Now if you think £300-£400k is expensive for a 4 bed in London, then you are miles off. That's cheap.

I don't see how we can afford to keep them there with that kind of money coming out of the public purse, it really goes against everything I believe in but £15000 a year for rent is more than most families have to live on after accomodation expenses. If they have never paid that level of rent before because they have never worked or been able to earn at the level required to cover the rent then we need to move them on. Harsh I know, horrible infact but if this applies to 17,000 familes in London alone then we are talking massive amounts of public money being wasted.

 

[tierk]

I have a 3 bed house in Thornton Heath, it cost me £212k. Going rate was £240k on the road at the time. Now this is just about South London. If I'd gone a couple of miles up the road to Streatham the same house would have been around £300-350k.

I'd expect rental of between £1000 -£1100 at the moment.

Now if you think £300-£400k is expensive for a 4 bed in London, then you are miles off. That's cheap.

That is exactly the problem. The house prices in London are just in never ever land for most people and the rental market will reflect that.

Personally i think that this cap is just senseless and i can see why soe people find it so easy to saythat people should just up sticks and move but life is not that easy. Schooling, family, doctors all have massive effects on where people live and it should not just be about the cost.

 

[Ch3tan]

It should when the country is in massive debt and people are losing their jobs. This is exactly the time when people should be thinking about hard choices to give them a better life, not expecting the state to maintain their current standard no matter what.