Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

FOR SALE bargain house in Poets' Corner

butchersapron

blood on the walls
In terms of 'subsidy' it's much more important to concentrate on the role and function of vertical subsidy nationally as a whole rather than horizontal regional subsidies.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Given the way that HB is calculated, the actual amount is irrelevant really. If rents in London were all halved overnight, more people would find themselves in a position where they weren't stuck in a benefits trap and could profitably work more hours. That would help the economy overall, and of course, everyone's rents would be lower, so everyone would feel the benefit. Everyone except the landlords, that is. It is the landlords who are subsidised by the housing benefit system, nobody else.
You think people are having to claim in- wwork benefits because they're choosing to work less hours? Good grief.

A third of the worforce earns less than £15k. ffs
 

Paulie Tandoori

shut it you egg!
Given that most people in work, even in low-paid work, in London don't claim HB, I wouldn't think it would make that much difference. I would need to see some much more convincing stats to show that there are large numbers of people on minimum wage claiming HB before I accepted the premise, tbh.
So how do you think someone on NMW paying private rent currently affords to maintain their home? I showed you offical stats above about 159,000 h/h's in London being affected, and would estimate that at least 40% of these would be in some kind of low-paid work (by definition), which represents 60,000-odd households. That's a pretty large number to me.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
You think people are having to claim in- wwork benefits because they're choosing to work less hours?
I know that a lot of people choose to work fewer hours because it is not worth their while working any more. I've been in that situation myself. The system is set up in such a way that this is what happens. If rents were reduced, fewer people would be in this position.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
So how do you think someone on NMW paying private rent currently affords to maintain their home? I showed you offical stats above about 159,000 h/h's in London being affected, and would estimate that at least 40% of these would be in some kind of low-paid work (by definition), which represents 60,000-odd households. That's a pretty large number to me.
To affect wages - ie put significant upward pressure on wages - I would doubt that this would change anything significantly. How many people in low-paid work instead live in shared housing because they can't afford their own place? Far more than 60,000 households. That's the typical situation of a Londoner on low wages, I would suggest - if they're not living at home or in social housing, they are far more likely to be renting a room in a house/flat than in their own place.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
I think ymu's point is all part of the same concept that says it is ridiculous that anybody in full time employment should have to have their income supplemented by the state; that any such supplements are, in effect, a subsidy to the employer so that they don't have to pay an equitable wage.

If that is her underlying issue then I think it's a fair point.

Arguing about the exact nature of the supplement is a bit nitpicky. If a supplement exists then it is naturally distorting the market. One such distortion could well be to artificially keep rents (and therefore house prices) higher than they would naturally otherwise be.
Yes, precisely on the first part.

On the latter, I mean that the rich can squabble over nice properties in the SE, and still afford to site their businesses near where they live, ie where their self-ghettoisation has shot prices through the roof. If they had to pay the full economic cost of siting a business in the SE, they'd site it somewhere else.
 

kabbes

"A top 400 poster"
In terms of 'subsidy' it's much more important to concentrate on the role and function of vertical subsidy nationally as a whole rather than horizontal regional subsidies.
Can you explain what you mean? Or provide a link to an explanation? I'm sorry to say that I don't really understand.
 

kabbes

"A top 400 poster"
On the latter, I mean that the rich can squabble over nice properties in the SE, and still afford to site their businesses near where they live, ie where their sef-ghettoisation has shot prices through the roof. If they had to pay the full economic cost of siting a business in the SE, they'd site ut somewhere else.
It's not even just about wages. Every time we come up against a natural disincentive to site a business in the SE, the government bends over backwards to remove it. Flights full up? Build another runway. Roads full up? Build more roads. These are all things that would otherwise factor into a cost-benefit analysis of where to put a business and by removing them from the equation, pressure falls back on things like rents instead.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
In terms of 'subsidy' it's much more important to concentrate on the role and function of vertical subsidy nationally as a whole rather than horizontal regional subsidies.
Yes, I agree. But you can't really split them out. Unemployment blackspots exist because of the distortion. If employers in the SE had to cover all costs, most of them couldn't be there, which means they'd be somewhere else. It"s part of what drives inequality, regionalisation if the vertical, if you like.
 

Hooly Martins

eternal war eh?
Can you explain what you mean? Or provide a link to an explanation? I'm sorry to say that I don't really understand.
Nothing majorly important, and debate has moved well beyond what i was concentrating on anyway. The role of welfare set-ups and schemes that allow the rich to rip off the public purse (for want of a better term) to funnel money upwards nationally are more important than which region subsidies which, the latter approach just flattens out the picture into competing parochialisms whilst ignoring the internal structure of the region.

(butchers posting)
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
How do you define 'full economic cost', though? To me the whole point of this is that the so-called 'full economic cost' is skewed by the iniquitous nature of things like rents, which is why so much HB has to be paid out in the first place. It is an entirely ludicrous situation in which landlords are made rich for doing nothing.

That's stupid capitalist logic that allows people who own limited resources to charge what they want for others to use them. There's nothing right or fair or logical about that. It's simple extortion. The simple answer is proper rent controls, which we had before Thatcher scrapped them.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Not true - 67% of HB claimants nationally were also claiming income support, JSA(IB), ESA(IB), or Pension Credit (Guarantee Credit) - that may be a slightly different picture in London obviously but not to that extent I think you'll find.

DWP statistical summary May 2011, p.18
You have to exclude pensioners from the denominator when looking at in-work benefits!

Shelter ran the numbers a while back.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
You may see why I doubted that given that your figures seem so wildly wrong.
You're supposed to be good with numbers. Surely you can do better than that? Why not actually try to make a rebuttal instead of this pathetic whining.

What kind of scientific thinking made you think it makes sense to include pensioners in the denominator when looking at in-work vs out-of-work benefits?

Or were you just too desperate to prove you were right you didn't stop to think?
 

kabbes

"A top 400 poster"
Nothing majorly important, and debate has moved well beyond what i was concentrating on anyway. The role of welfare set-ups and schemes that allow the rich to rip off the public purse (for want of a better term) to funnel money upwards nationally are more important than which region subsidies which, the latter approach just flattens out the picture into competing parochialisms whilst ignoring the internal structure of the region.

(butchers posting)
Cheers. Makes perfect sense.
 

kabbes

"A top 400 poster"
How do you define 'full economic cost', though? To me the whole point of this is that the so-called 'full economic cost' is skewed by the iniquitous nature of things like rents, which is why so much HB has to be paid out in the first place. It is an entirely ludicrous situation in which landlords are made rich for doing nothing.
The benefit to landlords is a symptom of the problem alright. It's not the only symptom though, nor is it the cause.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
80% still seems too high.

From that report:

At February 2011, the total number of people claiming Housing Benefit was 4.87 million
At February 2011 there were 4.87 million recipients of Housing Benefit, of whom almost three-quarters were aged under 65. The average weekly amount of Housing Benefit was £84.81.

68% of Housing Benefit recipients were tenants of Social Sector with 79% of Private Sector tenants receiving the Local Housing Allowance.
67% were also in receipt of Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, income-based Employment and Support Allowance or Pension Credit (Guarantee Credit).
so, three quarters not pensioners, two thirds living in social housing, two thirds on income support.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
How do you define 'full economic cost', though? To me the whole point of this is that the so-called 'full economic cost' is skewed by the iniquitous nature of things like rents, which is why so much HB has to be paid out in the first place. It is an entirely ludicrous situation in which landlords are made rich for doing nothing.

That's stupid capitalist logic that allows people who own limited resources to charge what they want for others to use them. There's nothing right or fair or logical about that. It's simple extortion. The simple answer is proper rent controls, which we had before Thatcher scrapped them.
Full economic cost means employers pay every penny of venefits for their employees and every penny of ibfrastructure needed to ease overcrowding. If they did, shopping and eating out would become too expensive and the jobs would move elsewhere and London would not exist in its current overpriced form.
 

Paulie Tandoori

shut it you egg!
You have to exclude pensioners from the denominator when looking at in-work benefits!

Shelter ran the numbers a while back.
It is something like a 60/40 split though, I made a similar mistake of claiming that most HB claimants were in F/T work and was proven wrong. I think part of the problem is around definitions basically, so essentially working less than 16 hours isn't classed as "work" for means-tested benefit (although it doesn't mean that you will get top-ups of MTB's necessarily), whereas 16-29 hours is kind of "part-time" work for tax credits and 30 hours+ p/w as "full-time" and extra payments.

Whatever, the wider point that many people can only afford to work in London due to state-assisted subsidy of some kind (whether wages and/or housing and/or childcare) is correct - its also correct that many of these people will almost inevitably need to move to outer London, with forthcoming changes to the welfare system - many youth advice servcies are already reporting seeing rises in the number of homeless young people, even before the worst effects of the changes come into force.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
Full economic cost means employers pay every penny of venefits for their employees and every penny of ibfrastructure needed to ease overcrowding. If they did, shopping and eating out would become too expensive and the jobs would move elsewhere and London would not exist in its current overpriced form.
But in terms of the narrow issue of private rents, the level at which these are set is a political decision, one taken to maximise the profits of the already rich without having to work as they steal ( there is no other word for it) the rewards of the labour of others. You can't separate off an independent 'full economic cost' in such circumstances. In reality, I would argue that the full economic cost is distorted upwards by the current lack of fair rent legislation.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
The benefit to landlords is a symptom of the problem alright. It's not the only symptom though, nor is it the cause.
I think you have missed my point. Why are private rents so high? That's the important question, I think, and the answer is because some people own more than one house when others own none, and there is not enough social housing around for those that own none. This has absolutely nothing to do with one part of the country subsidising another or anything like that. It is, purely and simply, the theft of money from the have-nots by the haves.
 

Mrs Magpie

On a bit of break...
....but is any of this pointing and laughing at the hapless twunts who thought it was OK to advertise their bargain overpriced £380,000 house maisonette on U75? Answer me that.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
It is something like a 60/40 split though, I made a similar mistake of claiming that most HB claimants were in F/T work and was proven wrong. I think part of the problem is around definitions basically, so essentially working less than 16 hours isn't classed as "work" for means-tested benefit (although it doesn't mean that you will get top-ups of MTB's necessarily), whereas 16-29 hours is kind of "part-time" work for tax credits and 30 hours+ p/w as "full-time" and extra payments.

Whatever, the wider point that many people can only afford to work in London due to state-assisted subsidy of some kind (whether wages and/or housing and/or childcare) is correct - its also correct that many of these people will almost inevitably need to move to outer London, with forthcoming changes to the welfare system - many youth advice servcies are already reporting seeing rises in the number of homeless young people, even before the worst effects of the changes come into force.
Yeah, the definitions are tricky. I checked the shelter stats at the time and got close to them. Finding actial in/out of work splits is the problem.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
But in terms of the narrow issue of private rents, the level at which these are set is a political decision, one taken to maximise the profits of the already rich without having to work as they steal ( there is no other word for it) the rewards of the labour of others. You can't separate off an independent 'full economic cost' in such circumstances. In reality, I would argue that the full economic cost is distorted upwards by the current lack of fair rent legislation.
I'm not looking at a narrow issue though. I'm looking at how it can ve sane to set up a business in the SE when costs are so stupidly high. Housing benefit makes massivee regional inequality in wealth sustainable.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
Housing benefit makes massivee regional inequality in wealth sustainable.
It contributes towards maintaining massive regional inequality in private rents, certainly. But with a fair rent act in place, this would make living in the SE cheaper for people renting privately. If there were more social housing available, that would have the same effect. If things were more equitable in housing, more just, there would in fact be more reason to set up a business in the SE.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
I think you have missed my point. Why are private rents so high? That's the important question, I think, and the answer is because some people own more than one house when others own none, and there is not enough social housing around for those that own none. This has absolutely nothing to do with one part of the country subsidising another or anything like that. It is, purely and simply, the theft of money from the have-nots by the haves.
Rents are driven by house prices are driven by the degree to which the rich want to live in the area and open up businesses there.

You're refusing to engage with the point being made. I'm not looking for heroes and villains, just trying to point out that places like London can only get rich through massive subsidy from the rest of us. HB itself is peanuts compared to the loss of jobs and investment that HB inflicts on poorer areas.
 

ymu

Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Don't get me wrong, I love London, and Londoners. My partner and half my family are Londoners. I'd live there if we could afford it. Just annoyed at how benefits claimants are forced to claim for the benefit of the rich, and then demonised for it.
 
Top