Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

edgex

lostinrates wrote: »

I disagree that is easy. It is not with ease I would see an unplanned child 3/4/5 go hungry. I don't feel unlimited support is helping, but I don;t think thats an easy position to have arrived at.

why would they go hungry?
plenty of children go hungry, or are not fed properly, under the existing system.
how does anyone even know that the existing money thats being paid out is actually used to feed children?

what if those on benefits, the children were given free breakfast & lunch at school, & during term-times they didnt receive any child support payments?
at least that way, the state knows that the children are being fed, & that the money isnt going elsewhere.
oh, but that would lead to cries of nanny state, too much control blah blah blah
well tough, the one thats spending the money has a say in how its spent. if you dont like it, there is no money.


why are they unplanned? what is an unplanned child?
are people really so ignorant of how to have safe sex?
(i know there are genuine 'accidents' but they are a minute number)






the social security system was supposed to be a safety net
a safety net is something one falls onto, & then gets off
it is not something you climb onto & then stay on

it is also not something that you can gain from, it may well prevent you from coming to harm, but it dosnt make you better than you were before you fell off & landed on it

fantasy_dreams

I can see that people think that this is wrong, and I agree up to a point. This family lives in Maida Vale and house prices are insane up there (rent as well as buying it). I don't think the council is overpaying. I am even thinking that large houses are quite rare there, most of the local stock will be 2-3 bedrooms. So, I don't have a problem with the local council paying that much for a large house. Especially as it came fully furnished (no, they didn't pay for a leather suite).

I am questioning though if this family needed to be housed in Maida Vale. A nearby borough would have been equally good ? It reallt depends on how long they have lived in the area. Anything under 3 years and they should have been moved somewhere cheaper. Cricklewood is just up the road and considerably cheaper with a much larger amount of social housing available.

I have recently fallen on hard times and for the first time I am living entirely on benefits. I am not english, I am one of those silly immigrants. But I have lived and worked in this country for 14 years and my daughter was born here. Am I not entitled to benefits ? What would you suggest I do ? Crawl into a hole and stay there until times improve ?

I hate the Daily Mail writing stories about how well people live on benefits. I wish one of these reporters can show me how to afford a TV, car holiday and all these things I am apparently now able to afford. I can barely make ends meet, actually I cannot make ends meet and that it not spending it on luxury things, but £70 a week is a pittance in London. This money has to cover all of our bills (gas, electricity etc) and somehow pay for food as well. With a teenager at home this is not an easy life or anything anyone could strive to. If you see your local familiy on benefits affording a Flat Screen TV, then you see the latest victim of your local loan shark. Not someone who can afford this on their benefit income. I guess I should have had more than 1 child, but I haven't got the patience or the nerves to cope with 10 of them and I never intended to live off the state and hopefully I won't have to for much longer. (Overqualified is the most hated word in my household).

Anyone can fall on hard times. I am glad we have the benefit system that we do have. I am struggling, but we do not go hungry and we have a nice warm roof over our head. I am grateful for that.

tripled

I don't understand why housing/jobseekers/income support benefit isn't simply capped at minimum wage x 37.5 hours per week. Taxes and non-means tested benefits (e.g child support) can then be given on top.

The two adults would then receive a maximum of £28,464.80 per year before tax and including child benefits (assuming the kids are all under 16). Those are the means working people have to be able to live within Simples.

Even if the whole lot (10 of them) were over 18, benefit would be capped at a maximum of £113,100 per year before tax - high yes, but at least there would be a limit.

nightwatchman

!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:
If that was the case then I & my wife we should quit our jobs pronto!!!!
There is no way that we are making 28k p/a now that she has to go part time because of our baby daughter.

tripled

6 grand a year of that is child benefit on 8 kids, so the remainder is 22 grand per year which would be taxed and stamped, leaving a little under twenty grand a year. Still a good amount, but as I said it would be a 'cap' not an entitlement.

edgex

fantasy_dreams wrote: »

I can see that people think that this is wrong, and I agree up to a point. This family lives in Maida Vale and house prices are insane up there (rent as well as buying it). I don't think the council is overpaying. I am even thinking that large houses are quite rare there, most of the local stock will be 2-3 bedrooms. So, I don't have a problem with the local council paying that much for a large house.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone can fall on hard times. I am glad we have the benefit system that we do have. I am struggling, but we do not go hungry and we have a nice warm roof over our head. I am grateful for that.

but i dont think that this family have 'fell on hard times'


they have been residing in this country since 1991
all of the children were born in the UK
8 children, eldest is 16, so a child every 2 years, convenient that she started having children 2 years after arriving here, & dosnt seem to have stopped





why does it appear (could well be true) that as soon as peoples main/only source of income is from claiming benefits they start breeding like rabbits?

i used to help out at a school that was in what is called a 'deprived area', as pretty much every family was claiming multiple benefits, kids on free school meals etc
yet it wasnt unusual for a child to have 3 or more siblings
if they were an only child or just had 1 sibling, they would be a small family


yet where i live, a pretty standard middle-class area, the families are all 2 child families, they were when i was growing up here, & they still are.
at school, a 3 child family was unusual.

edgex

tripled wrote: »

I don't understand why housing/jobseekers/income support benefit isn't simply capped at minimum wage x 37.5 hours per week. Taxes and non-means tested benefits (e.g child support) can then be given on top.

The two adults would then receive a maximum of £28,464.80 per year before tax and including child benefits (assuming the kids are all under 16). Those are the means working people have to be able to live within Simples.

Even if the whole lot (10 of them) were over 18, benefit would be capped at a maximum of £113,100 per year before tax - high yes, but at least there would be a limit.

why should all the additional benefits be given on top?

theres things like free school meals that you can claim if your receiving certain benefits, but not if your a standard tax paying working person.
those meals would have to be paid out of that £28k a year that a couple would normally earn, so why shouldnt it come out of the capped benefit amount?


surely the cap of £28k should be the total of cash & non-cash benefits?


so, taking the free school lunches as an example
195 school days x £2 per meal = £390 per child to take off the capped amount

SingleSue

edgex wrote: »

why does it appear (could well be true) that as soon as peoples main/only source of income is from claiming benefits they start breeding like rabbits?

i used to help out at a school that was in what is called a 'deprived area', as pretty much every family was claiming multiple benefits, kids on free school meals etc
yet it wasnt unusual for a child to have 3 or more siblings
if they were an only child or just had 1 sibling, they would be a small family


yet where i live, a pretty standard middle-class area, the families are all 2 child families, they were when i was growing up here, & they still are.
at school, a 3 child family was unusual.

I have not produced any extra children since being on benefits - having a hysterectomy at age 31 says no but also, another child! :eek: I would never cope....

We had 3 children, we were an average middle class family and all the children were born during our years of marriage and working. My parents are very middle class now, they also had 3 children, also when not on benefits (they aren't on benefits anyway) and whilst dad was working.

My sister and her husband, both working, not on benefits....have 3 children.

I suppose it helps I am not strictly classed as being maternal

RDB

Not sure if its been said before but 1800 per week rent is only half the story. I bet they get 100% of council tax paid as well usually just less than half the rent. That would take it about 3K per week.

Then I bet they get child benefit for all those kids plus child tax credit, then he is probably either on sickness ben or JSA income support or something.

All told I bet he is on the same money or MORE money than a doctor or Solicitor with that many kids renting the same places.



There must be a stop to this madness.

elaina79

The_White_Horse wrote: »

at the end of the day, the state doesn't owe anyone anywhere to live.

You live where you can afford, and if you can't afford anywhere - tough.

the fact the state does its bit is fair enough, but no one should have more that a one bedroom flat off the state. If you can't afford that, then you can't afford to have kids.

and that is not stopping people having as many kids as they want. they can have 45 for all i care, provided they live in the one bedroom flat and get no extra benefits for the kids.

So if a family of 5 were living in private rented 3 bedroom house. They were happily working until 1 of them became ill. The other partner then had to give up work to look after the family. They are now totally reliant on benefits but couldn't afford to live in their home without the aid of LHA.
Once the person gets better then they will both go back to work and come off the benefits. Are you saying then that in the time that they cannot work through no fault of their own they should either be homeless or live in a 1 bedroom flat.