George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

vaporate

property prices are a joke. Only the uber rich can afford it.

B.E.N

dopester wrote: »

If the HB claimers parents have spare rooms in their homes it should be a requirement it is the housing benefit claimers who should be required to remain with parents. Not automatically get HB for their own place.

Nice thought, but wouldn't work in practice. E.g. HB Claimant could claim domestic violence. Furthermore, parents could be genuine hardworkers, with a tearaway son/daughter that is violent towards them - would you want to force the offspring to make the parent's life a living hell..?

dopester wrote: »

Or, HB claimants should be required to move to areas where housing/HMOs is much cheaper, selected at random computer - even if it's a long distance away from areas you know and have grown up in - from areas such as in cheaper parts of Middlesbrough or Margate or Rochdale or Sheffield.

Not get HB (or its equivalent) to pay for a house/flat in some really nice area the claimant has decided they'd like to live in - which is very expensive to live in at the private market rate.

Again, good idea in theory, but, we have to look at the practicalities of the situation. We want to get them back to work. Areas that are cheaper - Margate, etc, are cheaper for a reason - there are a distinct lack of employment opportunities. Thus, we would merely be perpetuating the situation by placing claimants there. That said, there's not really an excuse for HB paying Central London rents when there are boundary areas that work out significantly cheaper.

carolt

SingleSue wrote: »

You really don't like me do you?

I have so far constructed and then rejected 3 posts I was going to make in reply to your other post but decided I was being just a tad to emotional or giving away just a little too much information.

For information - The administration cost has never been my claim, others on this site made the claim and gave good evidence and arguements behind it.

Special educational needs provision has been covered by others in response to your post but I will enlarge on that and say that I do take a hands on approach, working alongside the school to enable especially my youngest to stay there.

As for my embarrassment, I am sorry, I can't help the way I feel about being on benefits, surely being embarrassed about being on benefits is better than being proud? I know I said I would probably sell them for less but we all say a lot of things when upset/pride gets in the way.....I would probably settle for doing my shopping when no-one else was around.

Times have been hard for us, mainly because I didn't know I could claim back parking and transport costs for appointments of which a lot of my budget goes on. I'm sorry I wasn't completely benefits savvy to know all the little bits and pieces...no other begger told me until I was informed on this site.

There are differences in my budget to what a typical single parent with 'normal' children would pay out, this is where my shortfall occurs for what are unavoidable expenses connected to the boys disabilities and which are not covered by any disability payments.

Finally, sorry for this very emotional response - I am emotional as I feel I am being got at. It has now made me feel incredibly guilty and unworthy of the efforts of other posters and for what they have done for me and my boys this summer.

I didn't ask to be a single parent, I didn't want to be a single parent, I never ever wanted to be on benefits and can't wait to be off them and I am doing everything I can to get off them in the future (sooner rather than later hopefully) and I certainly didn't ask to have disabled children, afraid that is a genetic thing that we didn't know about at the time.

I'm sure dopester didn't mean you,or to pick on you.

I don't think anyone would dispute that being the full-time carer of 3 children with disabilities is v hard work esp as a single parent.

I think dopester was making a general point, which as someone who has got by with 2 kids certainly (maybe 3? - can't remember at precisely what point our incomes went up...) with less than £230/week after housing/council tax/work travel costs had been taken off, I agree with - that it is (a) possible to survive on that amount quite easily and (b) something that many working parents have to do.

carolt

dopester wrote: »

If the HB claimers parents have spare rooms in their homes it should be a requirement it is the housing benefit claimers who should be required to remain with parents. Not automatically get HB for their own place.

Even if they have to squeeze kids to live in the same bedroom. Not taking up property paid for by HB, which many a FTB has to work for and finds a massive burden to rent, and especially to buy - or who are remaining with parents till ever older ages to try and save up money towards buying.

Or, HB claimants should be required to move to areas where housing/HMOs is much cheaper, selected at random computer - even if it's a long distance away from areas you know and have grown up in - from areas such as in cheaper parts of Middlesbrough or Margate or Rochdale or Sheffield.

Not get HB (or its equivalent) to pay for a house/flat in some really nice area the claimant has decided they'd like to live in - which is very expensive to live in at the private market rate.

I'm sure many HB claimers would find private enterprising ways to stay in the areas of their choice they were forced to chose between leaving for a house 200 miles away where they'd be eligible for HB, or losing housing benefit.

I should add this isn't new.

I remember in the mid 90's, after leaving uni, a friend of mine who was an actress, and therefore largely unemployed nearly all the time, rented a 2 bed flat in Camden with her boyfriend (a director, so similarly unemployed) - they pretended they weren't a couple, so got housing benefit for a 2 bed place rather than a 1 bed flat. They then rented the spare room out to a friend, giving them a nice comfortable cash-in-hand income on top of the free accomodation in Camden paid for by the good taxpayer - or you and me.

As a mere worker, of course, I couldn't afford to live in Camden.


I visited them occasionally for dinner parties etc.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

I should add this isn't new.

I remember in the mid 90's, after leaving uni, a friend of mine who was an actress, and therefore largely unemployed nearly all the time, rented a 2 bed flat in Camden with her boyfriend (a director, so similarly unemployed) - they pretended they weren't a couple, so got housing benefit for a 2 bed place rather than a 1 bed flat. They then rented the spare room out to a friend, giving them a nice comfortable cash-in-hand income on top of the free accomodation in Camden paid for by the good taxpayer - or you and me.

As a mere worker, of course, I couldn't afford to live in Camden.


I visited them occasionally for dinner parties etc.

I have very slightly older friends who seem almost to boast about having taken this course of action. One couple I'm thinking of now own two homes...London and Cornwall.

dopester

SingleSue wrote: »

I didn't ask to be a single parent, I didn't want to be a single parent, I never ever wanted to be on benefits and can't wait to be off them and I am doing everything I can to get off them in the future (sooner rather than later hopefully) and I certainly didn't ask to have disabled children, afraid that is a genetic thing that we didn't know about at the time.

OK SS. I haven't got time to give you the reply you deserve, but don't take it so personally. My swipe was at benefit culture and HB-ers.

It's difficult to rent a home and to save up money at the same time towards buying a home. Especially during the rampant HPI years. There is an increase in working people who are staying with their parents to ever older ages in order save up deposits in order to buy. It's not disguised to the outside world and neighbours and friends in anyway.

There is embarrassment vs embarrassment, increasing rage and resentment at an unfair system, for those trying to achieve who are not claiming benefits.

Whilst this might include you, I don't see why pay for others bad decisions and the consequences of them - including marrying and having children someone who had no integrity and shirks their responsibilities.

You didn't ask to be a single parent. I didn't ask you to marry and have kids. Special schools and other exceptional circumstances.. well of course their needs to be a structure of support and benefits for special needs. It shouldn't mean that all kids qualify for it if their needs are edging borderline, and alternatives can be considered if cheaper, which work and are adequate.

I didn't ask for the guy who chose to drop out of college to pay for his or her life on the dole/HB.

I didn't ask the couples who borrowed to the hilt for their mortgage to do so for their home or who lied-to-buy (poor potential repo victims, violins out, mortgage rescue em).

I didn't ask thingy's friend to study for a degree in architecture during the boom for them to find a bust results in a lot fewer jobs and opportunities in that sector. Where others have the violin out saying it's governments duty to pay for big new things which have little economic return requiring architects.

You worked at one point I recall SS. It could be I'm mixing you up with someone else, but I seem to recall you saying you were exceptionally good at it. Wasn't there an attempt to head-hunt you at some point for your experience and skills?

Why did you give that job up? Because you could get more on benefits as a single parent, and maybe to give your kids more time, personal closer care?

Isn't there anything associated with that line of work you used to be in, to set up as a consultant for, in a part-time self-employed role? If we really are to see more entrepreneurs, maybe you could brush up on any new developments and offer expert but simple help for people who don't know where to start - forms they might need / personalised information about how-to and risks. You could do that with broadband, a basic website, and a computer of course.

Nikkster

Dopester, do you not think that someone in Sue's position may actually save the government money by being a carer for her children? How much do you think it would cost to provide the services that Sue provides (even just for 'working hours')? Would you expect an externally provided carer to accompany children to hospital visits?

On one level I understand your questioning why you should pay for 'other people's bad decisions and the consequences' (speaking as someone who shares a studio flat 90 mins commute away from work in order to help save for a deposit), but on the other hand surely you can't have a safety net where the holes are so wide that barely anyone can ever be caught?

SingleSue

Thankyou for your reply Dopester....I do have a tendency to become slightly over sensitive at times.

Re work - I worked from the time I left school until fairly recently, in the later years on a contracted part time basis in the evening/at night but working sometimes up to full time hours as and when appointments/therapy/meetings at school allowed for the boys. These hours were arranged to coincide with hubby being home as securing child care was and still is an impossibility to find due to middle sons' record of aggressiveness and violence connected with his Aspergers.

Once hubby left, he was only willing to carry on having the children while I worked for 6 weeks and no longer, after this it meant that I no longer had childcare and no means of accessing childcare and was forced to give up my job. To further compound the issue, ex then moved over 400 miles away and refuses to have the children or even see them on a regular basis (last overnight stay was over 2 years ago, in total the children have seen him for approx 6 hours since then).

A further complication is that although the children are getting older, when hubby first left, middle son was not in formal education and was being ferried from one private tutor to another (he had been perm excluded as his needs were not being met) with about 30minutes to a maximum 45 minutes between me dropping off, getting home and then having to leave to get back again to pick him up to ferry him to the next tutor. Also, youngest didn't go full time until just over a year ago, until then he was on half days, quarter days etc and sometimes, no days at all! Youngest's needs could never be described as borderline as he has so many different things wrong and his needs are actually described as complex and high. Middle son's are slightly more settled but at one point, they were extremely high...eldest doesn't really need any educational help although he may need physical assistance on occasions as his is a physical disability (the other two boys and myself are now needing to be checked for the same genetic disorder)

My not working has nothing to do with finances, or spending more time with the children but everything to do with just not being able to work because of their needs, their appointments, the meetings with school, therapies, hospital stays etc....if I did manage to get a job, I would probably be sacked within a month with all the time I would have to take off as my agreement with the school is that I am available to go in at the drop of a hat (or within 10 minutes in other words) if an emergency occurs...which it freqently does. I wouldn't give two hoots if it made me worse off slightly to begin with (been there, done that when married and gave up carers allowance etc after youngest was born and I needed an escape from the caring role), salaries improve and adjustments can be made/overtime can be worked as and when.

I do still apply for employment when it is going through a quieter time with appointments and when I start believing that this time it will stay quiet..usually something goes wrong though, I was believing this last September ish and in very quick order, youngest ended up in hospital for a week, eldest started dislocating all over the place and then middle son ended up in hospital too! All hell let loose on the appointment front and some weeks, I would have maybe 20 minutes between finishing one appointment before having to be at another and I would be rushing from one to another and getting very stressed in the process. (We won't even mention my father here and all that entails from his stroke in April)

I have thought about self employment, it scares me a little (ok a lot!) as I am not really a front of house person, more the behind the scenes whizz who likes to organise and streamline people but I do have a little sideline which gives me an online presence, shows my admin and organisational skills and puts me in the shop window so to speak and adds loads to my CV..unfortunately, it is not something I can make any money from but it does keep me honed.

ILW

Nikkster wrote: »

Dopester, do you not think that someone in Sue's position may actually save the government money by being a carer for her children? How much do you think it would cost to provide the services that Sue provides (even just for 'working hours')? Would you expect an externally provided carer to accompany children to hospital visits?

On one level I understand your questioning why you should pay for 'other people's bad decisions and the consequences' (speaking as someone who shares a studio flat 90 mins commute away from work in order to help save for a deposit), but on the other hand surely you can't have a safety net where the holes are so wide that barely anyone can ever be caught?

My other half is a manager in a care home. Most of the places are government funded and are in the range of £500 to £700 per week.
On that basis SingleSue is saving the taxpayer around £6000 per month by looking after her own children.
The problem with the current system is that many know how to work it and chose to live a pretty comfortable life on benefits when they are quite able to work and support themselves.

treliac

ILW wrote: »

My other half is a manager in a care home. Most of the places are government funded and are in the range of £500 to £700 per week.
On that basis SingleSue is saving the taxpayer around £6000 per month by looking after her own children.

I imagine you're talking about older people, for whom the care costs can't be compared with the (much higher) costs of care and education of children.