Not me.


What's your point here and why is it relevant?



Not a big "If" at all.
Nowadays, the greatest problem with housing is that supply is falling short of demand, leading to higher purchase prices and higher rents ... social housing eases this, but only to the extent to which it is allowed.
Also, since Thatcher swept away many tenancy rights in the private sector, social housing is more secure.
And now you want to boot out those who pay their rent themselves.



And how do you propose to rent them out?
If the owners of the empty private ones wanted to rent them out, wouldn't most of them be rented-out already?



It's the DWP who says it costs more in benefits when the recipients are in the private sector, see earlier post and link.
Adding profit onto the costs must increase the rent, it's very simple.

That and the fact that not all private landlords accept DWP Benefits claimants, in or especially out of work, and especially not now that the Housing Benefit payments are rolled into Universal Benefits and paid directly to the claimant - its only served to make the matter worse (not thought through policy rears its head again).

At least it helped to make the thread readable.

Your modus operandi is to question everything and answer nothing.
Must have taken you a while to come up with that.

Do you understand what a subsidy is?

Via a fiscal stimulus to temporarily fill the demand gap.



'"

Where is supply falling short of demand? Higher purchase prices & rents? Relative to when? I think you'll find the house price boom is a thing of the past.

Took a while, but she's finally made it into the discourse.

Boot them out? Why should there be social housing apart from the most needy in society? Why should anyone who can afford not to be subsidised by the state be so?

The benefits paid out [imay[/i be higher, but there's no capital outlay & ongoing capital costs. You seem to be missing this point.

Still no one has said why money circulating between government departments is better than it stimulating the economy. e.g people need homes to rent/buy, developers will build them.

No answer to the question then?

Do you, it appears not.

This has always been the case, nothing new here.

Of course there were absolutely no instances of the system being screwed by thousands of bogus hosuing benefit claims from unscrupulous landlords were there?

Why is paying benefit to the claimant an ill thought out policy? Are you saying that because someone is in receipt of benefit, they are completely incapable of knowing they have to pay their rent?

Can benefit claimants not be trusted?

How many of you that are against the spare room subsidy being applied to social housing think it should be repealed in regard to private rented housing? Give reasons.

So are you in agreement that the best administrators of social housing are local authorities and housing associations who can also offer unbiased and free advice via their housing offices to claimants regarding the claiming and payment of such benefits as may be available ?

The case is slightly different with regard to private landlords but the overall ruling can still be penury - the private market that caters for benefits claimants (and its by no means the whole of the sector that do) is quicker to adapt to the requirements of its clients, so in a district that requires accommodation for couples, or students or single people you will within a short space of time find dwellings split to offer just that - or alternatively if 3 or more beds are required, no private landlord wants their property standing empty and they tend to be very savvy about what is currently letting well in their district.

Local Authorities have been stymied for decades and their inability to invest in their own housing stock means that they simply cannot adapt to trending housing requirements - back int he 70s when I was involved in construction we built lots of council properties (and I mean thousands) and the majority of those were "family" homes, two and a half or three bed properties - its those very properties that are causing the problems now as those families have either dispersed leaving the parents, or the new incoming tenants are singles or couples.

If the country needs full employment (and its generally been seen as a target to achieve) and that full employment is created on the alter of NMW and non-committal contracts, then housing benefit will be required and housing to match the claimants needs will be required - you can't screw those people twice.

Yes, that old chestnut.
Do you dispute it?
If so, give reasons.



4.58984375:5