Struggling to pay your rent? Shelter needs your help!

Thanks all. I thought there must be something very wrong expecting him to live on £250 a month.
I'll let you know how he gets on.

Hopefully one of the jobs he's applied for will come up trumps but if not at least I won't be £380 a month poorer next month.


(I'm new to all this, I've worked continually since I left school in 1978 and never claimed for anything so wasn't sure how it worked.)

theartfullodger wrote: »

Piffle:

About half the benefit spend goes to those like me, the old. I get 6 benefits - State Pension, Winter Fuel allowance, £10 Xmas bonus, free eye tests, free prescriptions, 'bus pass. I could reasonably comfortably survive without any of them. Most of us old people aren't (thanks...) "..ill or disabled..". Many in receipt of Child Benefit, the various tax credits couldn't be described as "..ill or disabled.." either.

The benefit cutbacks have been very largely to the poor, the vulnerable, the disabled, the already disadvantaged: (very predominantly non-Tory voters - funny that..)

This is wrong, unfair, un-British. Shame on Mother T.

Best regards to all including those who disagree with me.

It's true that older people have been mainly insulated from the cuts, but apart for the cynical reason that they are more likely to vote, benefits for pensioners are low in the UK compared to other rich countries.

Benefits to working age people are higher overall in the UK than most other rich countries, and more targetted at the poor, ie more on a means tested basis than a contributory basis. We also have a far higher proportion of younger people on disability benefits than other countries, even though the health of our population isn't that much different.

- Single (could be renting in a house share, or in your own place) and not with children
- Earning up to £22,000 a year (could be working part time, in unstable work or full time)
- Not claiming benefits or only claiming in-work benefits (e.g. tax credits)

Sorry but I'm struggling to see how a single person, earning £22K, with a reasonable lifestyle, and not expecting the life that you get to enjoy when you earn £40K would find themselves unable to pay their rent.

I have all the sympathy for hard working people on low income, but £22k for a single person is not horrendous, especially if you are young and can look forward to future progression.

Hopefully one of the jobs he's applied for will come up trumps but if not at least I won't be £380 a month poorer next month.

Exactly. You made it sound as if he was signing on to a life of misery on a very low benefit income for the rest of his life. He isn't. He is young and able, and therefore should only be a question of time before he gets a decent job and able to support himself. What incentive there would be for him if he could receive in benefits the same amount that he is likely to get with his first step on the ladder?

Benefits for young unemployed people is expected to be hard to live on so they quickly move out of it, whatever actions are required to make it happen.

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Yes, the state should support people who cannot support themselves, whether temporarily or permanently. I'm more than happy to pay my taxes for this.

This is fine just short term, ( except in the case of disability when the person genuinely cannot work), but at the moment the State allows whole families to choose benefits as a way of life. If this was stopped , there would be enough to help the others, who are unfortunate and not choosing benefits (which can be lucrative if you have lots of offspring).

There are some , who deliberately make themselves undesirable as an employee , so get benefits for life and any attempt to make them do community work gets cries of 'persecution !' (There is lots of LA work that they could do, without depriving someone of a job, because, no one is doing the jobs (eg cleaning streets, grass cutting), anyway, because they are unaffordable.