Housing Benefit Changes... Interesting developments.

perthperson

Say the rent was £600 and you were entitled to the full amount of local housing allowance previously because you were on qualifying benefits or a very low wage. It's now capped at £450 so even though you are still on the same income you will have to make up the £150 yourself.

If you increase your income then you would be expected to contribute towards the rent - could be as much as 65% of the extra you are earning, so you'd still be worse off - unless you got a job that paid a lot more, taking you out of local housing allowance all together.

Dunroamin

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Not necessarily. If you used to get £600/month HB based on earnings, they are noww capped at £450. You could earn up to £150 extra - where you benefits would be re-assessed and you'd be entitled to £450. Thats £150 less than you used to get - but the same as you woould get once the cap is in place.

You're confusing the issue considerably by not realising that the £450 cap for rent (now lower than this) is per week, not per month!

paulmapp8306

i think thats kind of correct.

if your rent is £600 - and you were getting the full ammount then you will now only get £450.

However, if you up your wages you would be expected to contribute to your rent and under the old system may have had your HB reduced from that £600 to £450 - however with the cap you would STILL get £450.

So - one way of looking at it is that as you earn more - you are expected to contribute more to your rent BUT with the cap, you have (in effect) already had that part of your HB taken away - even if you DONT up your earnings. If you want to stay in the same house, you have to up your income to compensate. Its basically taking the choice of "work more for a small extra income" or "dont work more and get full HB" away. You now work more to stay in your home - or stay as you are and downsize your home.

paulmapp8306

perthperson wrote: »

If you increase your income then you would be expected to contribute towards the rent - could be as much as 65% of the extra you are earning, so you'd still be worse off.

er - no. if you contribute 65% of your extra income to rent - you are still BETTER off by the remaining 45%.

This is part of the issue as it stands. People think "If I work more i loose £x benefits" instead of thinking "if I work more I get £x extra a month to spend". The issue is that £x more might only equate to £2.50/ hour in your pocket which is why SOME people choose not to work/do more work.

paulmapp8306

put it another way. If you were getting £600/month you now get £450/month so have to make up the extra £150.

If you take more hours that pays EXACTLY £150/month - your "old" assessment would take 65% of that off your HB (£105) - so leaving you with £495 HB. Thats still above the cap though - so youd still get the £450 - meaning ALL your extra £150 would tpo up you HB to afford the rent. As I said though - you may also loose a little elsewhere.

ukcarper

I can see how you are working that out but are you sure it's is done that way.

brit1234

A little personal anecdote. I know a person who have been forced out of his 3 bed semi with big corner garden due to the HB changes. He now lives in a 2 bed flat.

I know another criminal which has had his job seekers benifits cut with the changes.

Both these drug dealers are upset with the Tories that they are getting less tax payers money.
:beer:

Loopgames

brit1234 wrote: »

A little personal anecdote. I know a person who have been forced out of his 3 bed semi with big corner garden due to the HB changes. He now lives in a 2 bed flat.

I know another criminal which has had his job seekers benifits cut with the changes.

Both these drug dealers are upset with the Tories that they are getting less tax payers money.
:beer:

How many criminals do you know?:eek:

stonethrower

Loopgames wrote: »

How many criminals do you know?:eek:

I hope a lot, he is a cop as far as I know.

Fella

Just one more of millions of "anti-cut" articles in the Guardian, none of which ever suggest what it is should be cut instead or how else everything should be paid for. Why does anyone waste their time on anything with zero credibility.