Half of homes are a burden on the state: Benefit payments and services
now outweigh taxes in 53% of properties
That is the headline today and the Government is right to show concern
and highlight Labour’s mismanagement but refusing Housing benefit for the Under
25 may sound a vote catcher but it needs some thought. For example at 24 I was
married with 3 children that was in 1974 and there was full employment but move
that example to today and I had lost my job would I not be entitled to housing
benefit? I can not remember if there was the same thing in those days all I can
remember was getting unemployment benefit luckily enough after a few months my
mother decide to employ me on a low wage to run the Martial Arts Club.
Interestingly enough you can see the difference in the Martial Arts Club
fortunes in 1980 there was enough being generated for me to get a small wage,
today I subsidies it. So the sensible thing is not give a blanket ban but to
offer the following:
1)
Those married with children sharing the same house
should be allowed Housing Benefit. The reason I say married is that it has a
degree of legality in that they can prove they are in a relationship.
Cohabiting couples do not have that proof, so there is less chance of
falsifying a claim with a married couple
2)
Those under 25 who may be at risk and who have
been alone for sometime but they should only be offered low cost accommodation
like Bed Sits
3)
The government should offer some form of Compulsory
Insurance scheme that pays for rent when out of work; they are compelling us to
have a pension scheme, so that should not be a problem.
The best way forward is to get full employment and one way
to start the ball rolling is to replace the foreign workforce with British
Labour on a decent wage. The other thing I have often wondered it is often
reported that foreign labour often rent a house and fill with beds and share
the costs so they can live in a cheaper manner, this way they can work for less
but still have a larger income to themselves, which makes good economic sense.
Yet I have a House which I rent out 4 rooms as bedsits and have to register as
a HMO (House in Multiple Occupancy) I have to abide by some strict laws by
having fire alarms in every room, fire resistant walls and ceilings, each room
has to have cooking facilities, food preparation area, sink, fridge etc. plus
the shared toilet has to be of a certain dimension and standard etc. Now I
believe all these conditions are just but why do I have to do all this and
others do not? Plus what about the health and safety aspects is the house
insured for an excessive amount of people living in it?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.