Hi all, I have had an email from someone who has asked a question…
One that certainly made me think…
They asked, Why people who are living in London (or other cities) – especially in the centres & have never worked, but are in Social Housing & in receipt of HB to enable them to keep that precious Social Housing, Shouldn’t (for the good of the people who do work & are in the lower income bracket) they be forced to move to the suburbs? So the cost of travel/home comes down for the workforce?
Now I am totally against Social Cleansing of any sort, BUT I also had to think about this, As I know the cost of travel & indeed the lack of available Social Housing is a major factor in why some LME’s (low / middle income earners) cant find work…
I know personally of Young parents who have never worked & yet have Social Housing properties in areas where work IS available…. Does this mean they shouldnt be offered this housing? Does this mean they should only have it if they have contributed (financially) at some point? Does this mean that young parents will have to wait longer (unless they have had work experience before working)?
Now before anyone gets angry at me, I am saying parents, as this was definitely where this angry email was aimed…
The young benefit claiming parents… (it didnt matter that benefit recipients can be any one) .
Personally I think the question of why don’t the absent parents contribute more should be addressed – BUT that’s a whole other can of worms….
It also didn’t seem to matter to the emailer that only 67% of Housing Benefit claimants were in Socially Housed properties, YET the cost of this bill is almost equal to the cost of the other 33% (which is going into the pockets of UNCAPPED rentals in the private sector).
I also wondered why the question wasn’t firstly asked of single people who claim Housing Benefit – of which there are 2.2 million. My thought was – why ask those 1.75 million who are bringing up the future of this country to move out of towns cities (which are important for social skills etc for the children), yet totally ignore the growing number of single people claiming benefit. (most of which is “passported benefit” ie:
What are passported benefits?
Passported benefits are benefits or schemes which some groups of people are entitled to because of their entitlement to certain benefits or tax credits. Benefits and tax credits which can passport you to other benefits or schemes include:
What can I get?
If you, or your partner, are in receipt of one of the above benefits you will be eligible for:
You will not need to provide proof of any other income or capital while you are entitled to any passported benefits but you must advise the DWP straight away, if any of the benefits end.
I actually didn’t realise that there was an automatic entitlement to a benefit based on the fact “you get one – you get the other” & I have to say – it doesn’t sit well with me, especially for those of the younger end of the claimants who are single…
So back from those cans of worms & onto my thoughts, Would this help our economy?
Possibly – IF & only IF the “move if you wont work” scheme was not selective… If it covered everyone who claimed Housing Benefit.
BUT also in my own experience, Whether i work or not is of no consequence to the bigotry I experience almost daily, just due to my housing status. So it wouldn’t help that aspect at all.
Also What if the Socially Housed person lost their job… would you want them “moved away” – How would that help them & their family?
I think in these days when rents are skyrocketing (some parts of London will have over a 50% rise in the next 8 years) with salaries nowhere near comparable; something should be done… However just STOPPING benefits & leaving people to languish in poverty is NOT the answer – What do you think?
Please let me know below or on
What do you think????