People Begging for a House Price Crash

This is rubbish. The max rate will be set at the 30th percentile of local rents rather than the 50th as now. They will *not* be cut by

30%. The only people getting a percentage cut (rather than cap) in HB/LHA are those on JSA after 12 months, and that's 10%, not 30%. This won't affect pensioners.

Perhaps these people should find out the facts before scaring people.

Such a pensioner would only be entitled to the one-bedroom LHA rate now, but that is currently 107 for Manchester anyway. The move to the

30th percentile will lower these rates a bit, but probably not much (certainly nowhere near 30%).

For my location it gives around £250 per week. However this covers a large area and one would have to relocate a few miles from where I live to achieve rents that low.

BTW: The house I mentioned is still being advertised at £2000 per month. It is a large 4 bed detached property though.

To be 100% accurate it doesn't list my area at all but does have the nearest large town, which is considerably different and not ideally close for someone to move to. It does have many dodgy areas, one of which I used to live in!

You can search on postcode.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

Only because I didn't hear the full item.

Thank you.

Yes, I was already aware of that, but this was a mention only yesterday, so I assumed that it was additional. We are getting a drip-feed of bad news, and not all of it is reported in the press.

She's not in the least scary, she's part of the Big Society.

That's more than she is currently receiving for a 2-up, 2-down property, which suggests that she will not be affected.

The point about many of these changes is that the people affected by them won't know what has hit them until it happens, and neither will CAB.

I heard a snatch of the LHA changes because I happened to listen to R4 most of the time. I suppose I could sit in front of the gov.org website all day... ;-)

You're welcome.

The problem isn't it's not reported, the problem is it's mis-reported.

Being chucked out on the street because you can't pay your rent *is* scary, and causes great anxiety to some people. I had a woman phone me having not slept the night before with worry because she had heard similar tall tales. Spreading half truths and partly understood information combined with political preconceptions about the evil new government is irresponsible.

But if she's on her own she's probably only entitled to the single bedroom rate (I think there are some exceptions), so it's possible that the 30th percentile will be lower than 90. But probably not, and if it is it won't be by much.

They should have a reasonable idea.

Better get no info at all than half heard snatches! And far better to read the budget documents etc than rely on often biased and inaccurate reporting in the media.

BTW it's .gov.uk, not .gov.org.

Still shows the same (wrong) place. The list isn't that long so it is bound to have inaccuracies due to averaging over larger areas.

But it's not wrong, nor inaccurate. That's how the system is supposed to work. HB tenants are (to be) expected to move to the cheaper towns within each "broad market area" and not remain in the nice expensive parts.

tim

But I'm not convinced that that is what people were doing. What I saw was people desperate to jump on to the property ladder as quickly as possible because prices were rising so fast that they were watching any chance of being able to buy disappearing forever. Even worse, they were paying more in rent than the mortgage cost.

It took a job move into a much more lucrative industry and a 3x increase in salary to be able to afford a property similar to the one I bought when my salary was approximately a quarter of what I now take home. Now it's certainly true that most people in my circumstance would have moved "up market" rather than paying off the mortgage 20 years early but I also see many people who have seen normal salary inflation that has made their mortgage repayments easy but are now living in a house that they could not afford to buy (other than by realizing equity in property from a previous house) These people are not speculators - they're buying a house to live in. And, if they bought when I did then they've made a very good choice - my mortgage was 560GBP/month at 6.5% when I bought. Rents were very similar. Presumably most people still have a mortgage that is now much cheaper. Rents are currently being advertised at around the 800GBP/month

Tim.

Or from an ordinary area to a slum?

I personally am opposed to this system where people will have to uproot and move away from the area they live, probably leaving behind their family and friends, having to move their children to different, probably poorer, schools.

What will be next, the return of the workhouse?

I think that you are missing one thing.

Most people in the private rented sector move every 12-24 months anyway because of the whim of their LL.

There will be very few people forced to move that wouldn't have had to move sooner or later anyway

tim

This is true. But is also a Bad Thing IMHO. It's one of the reasons why I stopped renting and bought a house. Renting is best for short-term accomodation.

But not necessary to a different area

Or to a better than average property in a worse than average area. Or a worse than average property in a better than average area.

I live in a very reasonable area and there are loads of decent places to rent for under the LHA rates, and will probably still be when they reduce them to the 30th percentile.

They are unlikely to have to, unless they live in a ridiculously expensive area like Westminster or they object to living in the same sort of housing as ordinary working families live in.

What are "poorer" schools? With this pupil premium the govt are introducing schools which have a higher proportion of poor pupils will be richer. If they move to a poorer part of town their school will be richer. I'm quite glad my kids go to a school which the local council estate tend to use - it's already "outstanding" and will probably be even more so when it's gets all this extra cash.

Or perhaps there should be no limits at all on HB, why shouldn't someone without a job be able to afford to live in a 5k a month penthouse? If you want to trade daft strawmen.

It seems the HB reforms are hugely popular, IIRC over 80% support them, including the majority of Labour voters. Which is why Labour aren't been too critical.

Perhaps there should be a special tax just for those who think it's right that the taxpayer pays some people in HB more than the vast majority of the working population's entire take home pay. 90% income tax should do it.

Presumably it's OK for people like me (not rich, not poor, and not money-grabbing), to have to move to a cheaper area?

But it's not OK for someone on HB to do so?

What's so special about *them*? And, if they are special enough at one point in their lives to have this preferential treatment, why should it entitle them to it for the rest of their lives?

The idea of welfare is to give a hand to the poorest people. Not to keep them in more luxury than ordinary taxpayers can afford for themselves.

Of course, if you want to volunteer to pay extra tax, to keep other people in luxury houses to avoid having to move a couple of miles down the road, I don't have a problem with that.

My parents had to move 1000 miles from their home town, to find work. Even now, immigrants willingly relocate thousands of miles to live in the UK. If it's an economic necessity, then people will move. It's not that big a deal.

(Even bankers will relocate abroad if necessary, if they are not allowed to earn their millions. Everybody's at it.)

In message , Andy Pandy writes

Only until the real effects are seen, and that will take a couple of years, I would think.

That is the correct strategy for Labour for the time being, along with pointing out the broken promises. Then there was Osborne's speech eulogising Ireland's "success". What a gaff, his £7Billion savings will be going across the Irish sea.

Milliband should not rush his policy decisions, time is in his favour.

The effects will be a few people will have to move out of expensive areas, and a few will have to move to the sort of housing ordinary working people live in.

Ireland, ike Greece, acts as a warning as to what happens if government debt gets out of control. As I've just posted in another group:

Well, Ireland hasn't gone back into recession (which the UK Labour party were warning about), it's suffered a soverign debt crisis (which the Tories were warning about).

The two well documented dangers in the current economic climate are:

1) Cut spending too fast and you risk a double-dip recession. 2) Don't sort out the deficit and you risk a soverign debt crisis (which will force even bigger spending cuts and so potentially lead to 1) as well).

The Irish couldn't sort their deficit out so they hit 2). The actions forced upon them as a result will likely make them hit 1). They didn't hit the problem because they cut spending too fast as Labour etc were warning about, quite the opposite they didn't cut fast enough to bring the deficit under control.

Clearly avoiding a soverign debt crisis is vital otherwise you end up with both problems. 1) hasn't happened on its own yet, and even if it did it wouldn't be as bad as if 2) happened. Other countries like Spain and Portugal are worried about 2) not 1).

Those arguing that avoiding a soverign debt crisis is more important than worrying about a double-dip recession are being proved right.

I live in a very reasonable area and I can't find any places to rent (albeit I haven't spent a vast amount of time searching) on or under the /current/ limit yet alone the 30% percentile.

Not true as I have already pointed out.

It is a well documented fact that, on average, schools with a higher proportion of poorer students less well. This is why the government have to invent CVA scores.

I'm glad that I live in an area where the less fortunate have to go to different schools since my kid's school is the best in the region. It's the only nonselective Secondary to get an "Outstanding".

The school that serves the council estates has a much lower OFSTED rating and also struggles to get pupils. A consequence of this is that it gets /less/ money. I very much doubt the pupil premium will address the issue properly. Remember there is no new money for the pupil premium; it is coming out of the existing school budget.

You are "trading daft strawmen" IMHO. I am in favour of allowing adequate HB so that a family who's hit on hard times will not have to relocate that's all.

I'm sure the reforms are popular as the press are good at printing inaccurate and unrepresentative 'cases' to stir up FUD. I don't fall for it myself.

More strawmen.

Good riddance!

Whilst I agree with you generally, you are wrong on this specific.

Ireland's problem is not because of its deficit. It is because of its extraordinarily large unsecured "consumer" debt. I put that in quotes because most of the problem is commercial lending to property speculators who have bought (and built upon) ludicrously overvalued land which they now cannot sell for even a fraction of the price paid.

It is this debt that they require support for.

tim