Another one of those benefits threads

tabskitten

nembot wrote: »

Well I started, so may as well thank everyone

I'm still in disbelief after reading mitchaa's post, it's truly shocking to see the figures in black & white.

Never apologize for starting a thread like this as it gives all us frustrated benefits bashers a place to let off steam!!:T

PasturesNew

I can't get on with the entitledto website, so CBA to go faffing about with it to chuck in the figures for 1-2 kids. But, in my area, LHA is:
- for me (1 bed) £468/month
- 2-bed £576/month
- 3-bed £666/month

Then there'd be extra CT to be paid out, which is about an additional £300/year for the bigger place.

LydiaJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No it's the astronomical mortgage levels btl landlords need monthly to break even that needs to be revised if they accept social tenants.

It's also the amount that ALL of us have to pay out to ensure a roof over our heads that needs to be revised. All are far too high. O/O, private tenant or social tenant. All are draining the country and causing division.

Rental levels are the problem. Not who gets to pay for them ( you or the goverment).. whatever circumstances they're in.

While I agree with you that astronomical housing costs are a problem across the board, I don't think you can just say it's irrelevant whether the rent is paid by the tenant or the state. As rents rise, LHA increases in line. Wages have no such automatic increases.

treliac

silvercar wrote: »

Dare I say that it is harder work being at home with 3 kids under 5 than it is going out to work and leaving your kids with someone else?

(Harder work, but more rewarding.)

I only had two children, but working half time throughout their early years did not spare me any effort. First came the morning routines, up, wash, change, dress and breakfast for us all. Then hand over to their grandparents, to go to a stressful job which was difficult to fit into the hours in the first place. I was relieved not to have an accident as I thrashed the car the 20 miles back home, always against the clock. Returning home early afternoon, it was always in chaos - left by their grandparents (bless 'em ), so I had to clear up and take over for the rest of the day. Taking the children out and being their mum, shopping, dinner, bath and bed, preparing all our lunches for the next day and fitting in the housework. DH worked long hours and was never home until mid-evening. (Except for his two periods of redundancy, when we worked around the clock between us).

There was never a minute spare and I was always exhausted. At each 'milestone', when their schooling afforded me a little extra time, I took on more at work - we needed the dosh. It was no picnic and I would have dearly loved to get off the merry go round.

I know I'm not alone, having to be parent, housekeeper and employee, but it is incredibly galling to know that we work like crazy to provide for those who 'choose' to stay at home and be kept by the state, i.e. us and others like us. We were unable to afford the cost or the energy of having more children, which I really wanted.

treliac

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Rubbish ! Most of those that can't afford to rent/buy and can't stay in the family home any more end up in temporary accommodation. For years usually.

Don't kid yourself..... maybe if they did, they'd think twice. There is no more 'hostel' type accommodation left in our area.

Shakethedisease

£10 per person a day to live on then ? ( gas, electric, food, clothing etc ).

Raking it in.

While I agree with you that astronomical housing costs are a problem across the board, I don't think you can just say it's irrelevant whether the rent is paid by the tenant or the state. As rents rise, LHA increases in line. Wages have no such automatic increases

Yes and don't we all know it. But it actually IS irrelevant who pays the rent as long as it is paid. That's how the private rental sector works. What do you think will happen if it's not ?
You're in danger of thinking you're somehow 'entitled' to better private housing than those who've found themselves redundant, sick or unable to work cos there's no affordable/shift-based childcare available to them.

Right at the time when there is no social housing around either ? It's private or nothing. That's it. Private means someone has to pay. No pay, no house.

If you're saying that those who may have also paid into the system 5, 15, 20, 25 years or so and then lost their jobs, suffered a stroke, husband left and they have 3 kids to look after etc ..are now somehow needed to be shunted into accomodation which more 'reflects the fact that they now claim benefits'.. as opposed to ' I'm alright Jack, I've still got a job and should be entitled to much better housing' than the above.. then you're on a sticky wicket.

Don't kid yourself..... maybe if they did, they'd think twice. There is no more 'hostel' type accommodation left in our area.

Even those are full up ? Only option is to pay private rental rates or to have both singles/families on the streets. Once the hostels are full.. what's next ? Any other suggestions ?

Look I'm not looking for an argument. I just don't like all the stereotypical bumf that get's 'taken as gospel' in these sorts of threads. It's narrow-minded, blinkered and completely disregards the fact that most of us are only a pay packet away from depending on the state to pay the rent. Let's face it.

headcone

carolt wrote: »

I've been holding this in, but there's another whole very cross benefit thread in me that needs to come out - I did some calculations on the wonderfully-named 'entitledto' website just prior to the election and was shocked to discover how utterly pointless my bothering to work was (at least financially - I couldn't live with myself if I was a leech like this woman...).

Sorry to all those who hate these threads - but I don't think the point can be said enough that we as a country simply cannot afford to incentivise people in this way - to deliberately divorce, not work and have innumerable children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276818/I-afford-stay-married-lose-200-week-benefits-says-mother-seven-children-fathers.html

If you are not qualified or intelligent enough to get a job that earns more.

it`s your own fault.

LydiaJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're in danger of thinking you're somehow 'entitled' to better private housing than those who've found themselves redundant, sick or unable to work cos there's no affordable/shift-based childcare available to them.

If you're saying that those who may have also paid into the system 5, 15, 20, 25 years or so and then lost their jobs, suffered a stroke, husband left and they have 3 kids to look after etc ..are now somehow needed to be shunted into accomodation which more 'reflects the fact that they now claim benefits'.. as opposed to ' I'm alright Jack, I've still got a job and should be entitled to much better housing' than the above.. then you're on a sticky wicket.

If you look back over my posting history you will see that
a) I am not one of the benefit-bashers.
b) I have frequently pointed out that many single parents are mothers whose husbands have chosen to leave, etc.
c) I myself am a single mother whose husband chose to leave (and then died some time later). I work 65% of full-time and claim tax credits.
I would support a reduction in tax credits for people on my level of income and higher.
d) I have never said the things you are suggesting could be attributed to me.

However, I do think that it is disastrous for the country if the benefit system actively incentivises not working as a permanent lifestyle choice, and incentivises relationship breakdown, as per the article in the OP. Nobody should be in a situation where they would be able to work but can't afford to because they would be much worse off than on benefits. In previous discussions on this subject I have pointed out how complicated and difficult it is to change this. I still think the attempt should be made, particularly considering the size of the deficit.

Shakethedisease

and incentivises relationship breakdown,

Oh my, I don't think that's ever incentivised by anyone. That's just a human nature thing.

Nobody should be in a situation where they would be able to work but can't afford to because they would be much worse off than on benefits.

Yes, that's what I said. Rents are too high.. it's not the wages, it's just that the wages won't cover the rent. Rent's won't come down till mortgages do, and those won't come down until house prices do.

But that's what's at the heart of most being 'worse off' working. They simply can't afford the rent if they do. They're out of reach on a single minumum wage. Part-time, forget it !

Ps I'm a mum of 5. I've been everything to a teenage single parent in the thatcher years, a mid twenties single parent of 2 in my 20's ( husband left) on benefits, then minimum wage, then a student, council house..to where I am now. Self-employed and my husband recently laid off, and my oldest son jobless now for a year.

It scares me how fast things can change in life. I've been at opposite ends of the spectrum loads of times. But, a roof over my families head has always been a neccesity whatever my situation.
It frightens me when I see stuff like this thread and everyone jumping all over it quoting how much they earn and how much they 'don't get' compared to 'blah blah'.

An attempt certainly should be made but not at the expense of leaving people without a roof over their heads. I don't know the solution.. only that lumping people into groups of 'wasters', posting figures of 'look how much these layabouts get' and 'I work and pay half my wages on rent so why should'.. well it won't house everyone. And it isn't the problem, the expense of just renting for anyone these days is.

LydiaJ

Sounds like you've come through a lot. Hope your husband and son find work soon, and your business does well despite the recession.

I do agree that a "better off without husband" benefits system does sound rather far-fetched as a reason for splitting up, but it was the main point of the OP's article, so it seemed worth mentioning it in this thread.

I also agree that it would be great if rents and house prices came down. I would certainly be better off if they did. Whether that can be achieved without carnage in the wider economy is a bigger question than my economic education can handle. I have brothers who were in negative equity in the 90s and it wasn't pretty.