Andy, I'm not sure what your message is here but on a few factual points.
My 'bag' is benefits not housing so no direct experience of capital limits for shared ownership in the noughties. However, if the supply is limited and the intention is to get those who could not otherwise get on the ladder then it's not unreasonable to set a capital limit.
The problem with that is that it actively encourages people to spend, spend, spend and not be responsible (previously known as 'thrifty') with money. I personally know people in the same situation salary and circumstances wise as me but who spend like it's gone out of fashion - they would've qualified to be able to buy that home, as they would means-tested benefits - including housing benefit when unemployed.
In reality if you'd bought a Boxter and it was (balance of probability) the case that you'd done so to duck under the tape then you'd find the meaning of the phrase Notional Capital.
Essentially what I was getting at was I could've bought a brand/nearly new car (using my capital), bought the home, then sold the car after it likely (at the time anyway) appreciated in value, thus getting around the rules.
The same may have been possible for the benefits - though I'm unsure whether they check/ask for a list of 'major assets' that a person owns when applying for benefits.
As I understand it you're a single bloke with a mortgage. Governments of both stripes have, over the years, made it more and more difficult to get help with mortgage interest whilst on benefits. Giving people money towards an appreciating asset doesn't play well with the 'audience'.
I've never wanted 'help' with my mortgage - my issue always was that others who frankly don't deserve it because they were not sensible with their money get benefits.
If I designed the benefits system, whether people got benefits would very much depend upon a) how much they've earned over X years (including spouses, and, where applicabale, children living in and tenants/lodgers at their home) and then calculated a reasonable level of spending based on reasonable outgoings they would need whilst living there.
If they frittered it away (as described above), that's their fault and at most they'd get the barest to live on, perhaps even requiring them to move home, especially if their previous spending meant they wasted money when they could've saved up for this proverbial 'hard times' (as I did) so that things like mortgage repayments were (in their case, not mine) at least still contributed to in part by them.
I know many people who've lost their jobs over the years who live in expensive areas and off their own bat relocate because it would be unfair for the taxpayer to subsidise a big mortgage or rent, and besides, it often means they can live at a lower cost as well as look for work in other area.
This was one of the chief reasons why I a) did not spend that much before buying my first home, building up a decent-sized deposit (and thus reducing the mortgage repayments and knowing I still had some left over in case of periods of unemployment) and b) bought my home in a reasonably-priced (but nice) area that I could still reasonably reach large urban centres without breaking the bank in travel costs.
I think that too many people these days don't ever consider what may happen if they lose their job and think the taxpayer will pick up the bill via the benefits system, hence why so many people are not sensible with their income - the system actively encourage such behaviour.
The basic £70/week (now £74.70) is all you'd get; means test or not. Except while the uplift was in payment you'd get pretty much the same on Universal Credit. Only of you have kids, rent, caring responsibility or serious health problems would you have got more.
As to people staying on benefits can you actually offer some evidence?
Years worth of newspaper reporting have ably described 'the benefit trap' - noting that it was one Gordon Brown whose policies of tax credits and widfall taxes on pensions stopped people saving and encouraged spending (mostly on credit) as well as welfare dependancy. I mean why try and better yourself to earn more if you've got it mostly paid for you with practically zero effort on your side?
Obviously if there's a disability/long term health issue or caring responsibility then while those factors are extant one should stay on benefits. The unemployed and those with lesser health issues are encouraged into work.
The person most responsible for moving away from the IDS concept of Universal Credit was George Osborne; that was why IDS resigned.
Yes, I know, but I don't recall you ever were a 'fan' of IDS's original plans either.
|
