« Necessity, choice & legitimation | Main | What savings culture? »

June 24, 2010


Slightly Sceptical

Alternatively , given that the reduction comes in after a year . It encourages landlords to (ahem) encourage tenants , who have had their HB cut to move out. Replace them with fresh , newly claiming tenants who can get full HB.

... and as unemployment looks likely to go up,considerably, finding fresh tenants might not be too hard.


Will he really evict him when other likely tenants won’t be able to afford the rent either, because their housing benefit has been cut as well?

Do bears shit in the woods? Did they have any trouble at all last time out?


Lucky the previous government worked so hard to make sure that sufficient supply of affordable housing was available to meet demands and that council housing stocks were replenished. And it was so wise of them to realise that although we can all live without fancy consumer electronics, all of us need somewhere to live and to make sure the price of housing was included in all inflation measures. D'oh.

Mark Wadsworth

Quite right.

HB is a subsidy to landlords, and should be cut for the same reason as Land Value Tax is the least bad tax.

In any event, it is far cheaper building more social housing than it is subsidising 'private' landlords (who probably 'own' ex-councils that the previous Tory govt. flogged off cheap etc etc).

And as we well know right wingers subscribe to Bad Economics too and probably wouldn't agree with much of what I just said.

Luis Enrique

HB tenants will be evicted from desirable neighborhoods where they have no bargaining power, and migrate to bad neighbourhoods, where rents are likely to fall. Thereby making investing in the housing stock in those areas even less attractive.

I don't particularly like the prospect of taxation paying HB for low/no income households to live in desirable neighborhoods, which hard working folk cannot afford, but I don't like the outcome above either. I think this reform to HB only makes sense if accompanied by some activist state/NGO (whatever) construction of low-cost housing units in desirable locations, to create mixed neighborhoods prevent balkanization. This is one area with externalities all over the shop, and free-market outcomes ain't good, imho.


Doesn't the incidence of a tax often depend on the market at the time? A sales tax will fall more on the seller in a buyer's market, and vice versa. If there's greater demand for housing now than in the mid-1990s (which I'm not sure there is, but that certainly seems to be the impression one gets from the media), then the incidence of the cut would fall on the tenants more than the landlords, who would have more alternative people to let their property too.


What's needed, surely, is a system - and it can be quite a flexible one - of rent control, not constant tinkering with the subsidy system. Impossible you say? Well, both housing associations and councils manage to live with the rent restructuring system in the social housing sector, so why shouldn't the private sector be able to do the same?

Surreptitious Evil

Hang on - the newly reduced level of housing benefit is still more than double my mortgage. It is over 4 times (at the flats' rate) more than I ever got in rent for renting out my old flat.

This looks like a sensible restriction on landlords sucking excessively at the public teat (if the claimants were in a sufficiently good job to take them out of housing benefit, they wouldn't be paying anything near those levels of rent.

As for Central London - although I haven't worked there, people who worked for me have. Most of them, in good jobs, commuted significant distances and didn't claim that somebody else should pay so they could live in a Barbican flat.


Most of them, in good jobs, commuted significant distances and didn't claim that somebody else should pay so they could live in a Barbican flat.

Links and cites, or it didn't happen. Kindly cease talking points distribution.


Sorry guv,
I do not think the landlords would cut the rent because of reduction in housing benefit. It is fanciful thinking.


How will local authorities now manage the 'created public sector market' of private sector landlords providing 'housing solutions' in a less well cash rewarded CONDEM Coalition Country


Yeah but400 pounds p/w is a fuck of a lot - it's far more than I get or anybody who works with me.

Osborne is absolutely right to look to reduce it.

Damn' socialists.

discount coach handbags

It's not obvious that changes to how the government taxes and spend are what causes countries to move around that chart. I know you are not claiming it is, but one might read this post and think that if the government did things differently, we could move south west.

It may be, for example, that inequality in OECD countries is to do with the industrial mix in each country.

I wonder why Portugal appears to have such an unfavorable mix ... corruption?


The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad