Do The Planned Caps On Housing Benefit Go Too Far? Five Views From Both Sides
The Tories have announce a £400 per week cap on housing benefits. Mayor Boris Johnson has compared this to Kosovo style social cleansing. But ministers such as Business Secretary Vince Cable have countered Mr Johnsons use of “inflammatory language on a difficult and sensitive issue.”
Estimates suggests that 21,000 people will be adversely affected by these new rules, including 17,000 in London.
This article shall present five views from both sides of the argument. Please note that none of the statistics have been verified and may be inaccurate.
The Benefit Cuts Are Bad
1 – The cuts will affect key workers such as nurse, trainee doctors, cleaners, refuse collectors and shop workers. These people are vital for the city to function, but they can’t afford to commute and must therefore live in the city.
2 – The cuts are an attack on those who are on low incomes or benefits. If a family have children who attend a school in London, it would be incredibly unfair to move them, just to save the government a small amount of money.
3 – Most of the people claiming housing benefits work. Forcing them to move may cause them to lose their jobs, which will stop them paying taxes and contributing to society.
4 – It is unfair to make the weak and vulnerable pay the price for the mistakes of the banks. Instead of cutting housing benefits they should increase taxes for banks and high earners.
5 – The £400 a week cap is only the headline number. This will affect all people who claim benefits. So even people who claim modest amounts of housing benefit will be unfairly affected by the mistakes of greedy bankers.
The Benefit Cuts are Good
1 – If people can’t afford to live somewhere, then it is unfair to expect other taxpayers to pay for them to live there. Many people move to more affordable areas when they need more space to raise children. Those on benefits should not be exempt from this.
2 – The cuts do not go far enough. £20k for a single family is still too generous, when you consider that it would be close to the take home pay of a person working full time on a median salary.
3 – Many students and pensioners manage to live for on far less than £400 a week. It is unfair that people claiming welfare can receive more.
4 – The main beneficiaries of extortionate housing benefits are private landlords. A cut in housing benefits would hit the landlords, and hopefully lead to a fall in house prices.
5 – People on benefits should only receive the most basic of accommodation. Giving each teenage child a room is too generous, as children in many working households grow up sharing rooms anyway. It is unfair to provide people on benefits with luxuries that many taxpayers cannot afford themselves.
So What Will Happen Next?
At the moment, David Cameron seems keen to push through his changes. It is unclear whether or not they popular or not, as polls and forums are often biased by their readership. Guardian forums will state that the cuts are unfair, whereas Telegraph forums will say they don’t go far enough. At my office, a place full of men working 60+ hours a week, the thought that a third of their tax bill is going to support those who work fewer hours than them is quite horrifying. But my charity working friends are also very upset at the idea that their clients may end up losing their homes. This is a complex issue, and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment