The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[pingpong]

16 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

If accurate then that's absolutely shocking and highlights one of the main problems we face. 

Not accurate, simple to check.  Average childcare is 12k, which leaves 67k before rent.  You can rent a nice (luxury) house in the country for 3k a month, and still have 31k in change, and I don't think those on benefits are living in 3k a month houses...

[Sir Ralph]

35 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Not accurate, simple to check.  Average childcare is 12k, which leaves 67k before rent.  You can rent a nice (luxury) house in the country for 3k a month, and still have 31k in change, and I don't think those on benefits are living in 3k a month houses...

This is based on London prices with two kids (again this is context of the point being made). Good luck getting childcare for £12k a year - the figures are accurate. You would be looking at £4k- £5k a month minimum for childcare and rent. That doesn’t include additional costs incurred from working, such as travel costs. Even if the figures were slightly out (which I don’t think they are) there is a bigger point being made. The welfare system doesn’t encourage people to work in some instances - not something anyone should be supporting.

Also, even accepting your calculations, if they had £31k spare in “change” or I would call it other living costs having worked. Thats the same as the £30k that a couple of benefits would have having not worked. So you confirmed the point. In this scenario it pays not to work. 
 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[pingpong]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is based on London prices with two kids (again this is context of the point being made). Good luck getting childcare for £12k a year - the figures are accurate. You would be looking at £4k- £5k a month minimum for childcare and rent. That doesn’t include additional costs incurred from working, such as travel costs. Even if the figures were slightly out (which I don’t think they are) there is a bigger point being made. The welfare system doesn’t encourage people to work in some instances - not something anyone should be supporting.

Also, even accepting your calculations, if they had £31k spare in “change” or I would call it other living costs having worked. Thats the same as the £30k that a couple of benefits would have having not worked. So you confirmed the point. In this scenario it pays not to work. 
 

 

But only if you are content with council housing, as opposed to a luxury property in the commuter belt. If you are, then you could rent at 800pcm and have way more money by working.

If it was accurate, how do couples on average salaries justify working? (60-80k household incomes). Why are employment figures so high if the state is so generous.  My household income is less than 100k - are you seriously saying we could retire now? The reason I won't is because I like where I live, and wouldn't I have to go live in a shithole if I went down the benefits route?

If you are right, then maybe we should open up another forum and help each other navigate how to get a 100k lifestyle without working, because I'd probably go for that, I could spend my days making art and going to the gym rather than bending spreadsheets all day.

Edited 2 hours ago by pingpong

[Sir Ralph]

41 minutes ago, pingpong said:

But only if you are content with council housing, as opposed to a luxury property in the commuter belt. If you are, then you could rent at 800pcm and have way more money by working.

If it was accurate, how do couples on average salaries justify working? (60-80k household incomes). Why are employment figures so high if the state is so generous.  My household income is less than 100k - are you seriously saying we could retire now? The reason I won't is because I like where I live, and wouldn't I have to go live in a shithole if I went down the benefits route?

If you are right, then maybe we should open up another forum and help each other navigate how to get a 100k lifestyle without working, because I'd probably go for that, I could spend my days making art and going to the gym rather than bending spreadsheets all day.

Respectfully I think your missing the key point. The example in front of us that you commented on relates to London.

We aren’t talking about the locations you are referring to. You need to consider the London location in the context of the example that was disputed.
 

The cost of any housing in London for a four person family is nowhere near £800 pcm, even in rubbish areas. This is why the example provided does add up.

There is a massive shortage of housing which has elevated prices for everyone, including Councils. In many cases local authorities pay more than the private rented sector for housing. If Councils could rent housing in London at 800pcm for a 4 person family they wouldn’t all be in the financial position they are in because of their extortionate housing bills. A number have, or are due to, face bankruptcy with this being a factor.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Respectfully I think your missing the key point. The example in front of us that you commented on relates to London.

We aren’t talking about the locations you are referring to. You need to consider the London location in the context of the example that was disputed.
 

The cost of any housing in London for a four person family is nowhere near £800 pcm, even in rubbish areas. This is why the example provided does add up.

There is a massive shortage of housing which has elevated prices for everyone, including Councils. In many cases local authorities pay more than the private rented sector for housing. If Councils could rent housing in London at 800pcm for a 4 person family they wouldn’t all be in the financial position they are in because of their extortionate housing bills. A number have, or are due to, face bankruptcy with this being a factor.

 

Ex council houses in Southampton rent for £1600pcm, so about £20k a year. Childcare locally is about £70 per child per day, so about £33,000 per year based on a 5 day week with 47 weeks in work. 

So over £50k a year for rent of an ex council house and to have someone else look after young kids. Obviously, the childcare costs drop massively in term time for school age kids as only wrap around care is needed. 

Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

[Sir Ralph]

36 minutes ago, egg said:

Ex council houses in Southampton rent for £1600pcm, so about £20k a year. Childcare locally is about £70 per child per day, so about £33,000 per year based on a 5 day week with 47 weeks in work. 

So over £50k a year for rent of an ex council house and to have someone else look after young kids. Obviously, the childcare costs drop massively in term time for school age kids as only wrap around care is needed. 

Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

The example that was disputed was based in London. It was challenged and I have corrected it. Southampton maybe a different case, as may other locations, but it depends on the context. The point is that in some scenarios (not all) it pays not to work. That should never be the case - unless you disagree?

We don’t live in the 1980s anymore. The way in which people live is changing, hence why you have new rental products on the market.

What you will actually find is private landlords often help to provide housing to people that can’t afford to put down a deposit and buy as they provide rented accommodation that would otherwise be in private ownership. With the new requirements for landlords that the government has brought in, you will find that some landlords are now selling their rented properties to private home owners, as the government is forcing them out of the market. This means those renting (often HMOs) will or have been moved out of those properties, there are less rental properties, and therefore prices for renters will go up (hence the jump in rental costs). It’s another example of this Government meddling where they don’t understand the market consequences of what they are doing. They will in fact harm the people they intend to help.

The blame isn’t on landlords, in my opinion, but numerous governments over many years for not creating an environment for the delivery of sufficient housing. That should be your beef

Edited 29 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The example that was disputed was based in London. It was challenged and I have corrected it. Southampton maybe a different case, as may other locations, but it depends on the context. 

We don’t live in the 1980s anymore. The way in which people live is changing, hence why you have new products such as co living on the market.

What you will actually find is private landlords often help to provide housing to people that can’t afford to put down a deposit and buy as they provide rented accommodation that would otherwise be in private ownership. With the new requirements for landlords that the government has brought in, you will find that some landlords are now selling their rented properties to private home owners, as the government is forcing them out of the market. This means those renting (often HMOs) will or have been moved out of those properties, there are less rental properties, and therefore prices for renters will go up (hence the jump in rental costs). It’s another example of this Government meddling where they don’t understand the market consequences of what they are doing. They will in fact harm the people they intend to help.

The blame isn’t on landlords, in my opinion, but numerous governments over many years for not creating an environment for the delivery of sufficient housing. That should be your beef

I'm not getting into a wider discussion, just giving some actual facts about local house rental and childcare costs. Too many people float around made up numbers, and forget that child care costs don't apply to all kids, all day, every week. 

I'm not sure how you've gleaned that I feel that landlords are the issue.... there's a reason I'm in tune with the rental market. The need to rent, the rise in property prices thus rent, and the lack of housing stock, is entirely down to government policy. 

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not getting into a wider discussion, just giving some actual facts about local house rental and childcare costs. Too many people float around made up numbers, and forget that child care costs don't apply to all kids, all day, every week. 

I'm not sure how you've gleaned that I feel that landlords are the issue.... there's a reason I'm in tune with the rental market. The need to rent, the rise in property prices thus rent, and the lack of housing stock, is entirely down to government policy. 

Thats fine - I wasn’t getting into a wider discussion. In fact I was trying to focus on the specific example which was being deviated from.

Glad we agree successive governments are the issue. I made my comment on landlords because you said the below but if you agree they aren’t the issue then we agree on that also. Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

Edited 37 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats fine - I wasn’t getting into a wider discussion. In fact I was trying to focus on the specific example which was being deviated from.

Glad we agree successive governments are the issue. I made my comment on landlords because you said the below but if you agree they aren’t the issue then we agree on that also. Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

Yep, governments have made a right mess of things, although Thatchers sell off was the catalyst, and subsequent stamp duty giveaways etc haven't helped. 

The rental market is dominated by private landlords but that shouldn't be the case. So although I don't have an issue with landlords, I think it unfortunate that we're in that situation. 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yep, governments have made a right mess of things, although Thatchers sell off was the catalyst, and subsequent stamp duty giveaways etc haven't helped. 

The rental market is dominated by private landlords but that shouldn't be the case. So although I don't have an issue with landlords, I think it unfortunate that we're in that situation. 

Like you said we could discuss these matters more widely. I suspect we will have some areas of agreement and disagreement but maybe another day. Have a good afternoon.

[badgerx16]

This from the Torygraph last year;

"Generous welfare payments allow some London households to cash in, analysis suggests

A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70,000 a year, analysis suggests.

Increasingly generous welfare payments mean non-working families are able to claim tens of thousands of pounds of Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit, and benefit from discounted social housing, while many working families must pay full-rate rent and income tax.

Analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and The Telegraph shows that the combined value of these benefits and discounted rent in some locations can add up to more than £50,000 – more than a sole earner on £70,000 would get after income tax and National Insurance.

While this will apply in only a few places, it illustrates the size of the benefits packet on offer.

"

( Highlighting by me )

I think using London as an example in any such discussion distorts the argument.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/income/families-benefits-better-off-earning-70k-london/