We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Under 25 housing benefit
Comments
-
They'd have to be married first. I don't see what difference divorce makes, but most people are willing to skip the nuptuals if it's worth their while.No different than the situation that those that work find ourselves in, it makes more financial sense to divorce"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Well if caps are applied per household, a lot of households will gain by splitting into two.
Brilliant.
It's coming in the same time as the "bedroom tax" though. So if a family splits in two, only the main caring parent can have the bedrooms and housing benefit for the children. Say there are two teenagers of different sexes (which gives same allowance for family current as under bedroom tax rules), if say, dad moves out, he won't be entitled to extra space for the kids to come stay with him. What I don't know is, if taken to its logical conclusion, a parent of younger children who is also under 25 can be told to move back with their parents. I would imagine this could lead to some real humdingers of custody battles as if you lost the kids you could lose everything.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
But if there are 4 kids, there's enough to split. Mum and dad can have a girl and a boy each.vivatifosi wrote: »Say there are two teenagers of different sexes (which gives same allowance for family current as under bedroom tax rules), if say, dad moves out, he won't be entitled to extra space for the kids to come stay with him."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
It would not work, everyone would want to move to London to get more benefits. Make the problems of some areas overpopulated even worse.
By making the total cap 500 per week per family, they would be encouraging families to move to cheaper areas, where they would get to keep more of their 500 after they have paid rent.
There is no overpopulation problem in the UK, otherwise where are all the millions of homeless people like other countries.
The problem is some areas are over populated and some are underpopulated. The 500 cap would even things out.
But property would no longer defy gravity in London, rents and house prices will fall when the caps come in.
The biggest issue is that there are not enough jobs. The second is that of those jobs there are many are badly paid and many are only part time.
Encouraging people to move out of London will not resolve either of those problems. It merely masks the problem. Jobs outside of London are in shorter supply than elsewhere and you are committing people to even longer terms on benefits.
Why should areas outside of London have to take on London's problems when they don't have the infrastructure to support them.
Cleans up London but doesn't solve the problem.
I am all for getting people into employment and off benefits. There is a basic problem that there are not enough jobs to go round."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
AFAIK one of the things Frank Field wanted to see changed was the way that the benefits system encourages couples on benefit to live separately - there was a Panorama about "Britain's missing dads" in Jan 2011 that featured him talking about it. He was mostly talking about young unmarried parents - they interviewed several for the show, many of whom said that the dad would be willing to live with his gf and kids, but was living elsewhere because the mum would lose benefits if he moved in.Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
It's also going to disproportionately put young people that have been in care at a disadvantage, as well as affecting the number of young start-ups in this group, especially if the YP in question are disabled.
I've had 2 disabled care leavers, both under 25, speak to me and voice their concerns. This was also in respect to WTC as well as HB. These people would be unemployed otherwise, and I don't feel that paying £190-ish per week to subsidise a start-up business too much, especially as the likes of Amstrad was originally selling car ariels from the back of a car!
This was something that I hadn't thought about.
CK💙💛 💔0 -
Well if caps are applied per household, a lot of households will gain by splitting into two.
Brilliant.
This is another valid point, especially as I know various LL's that own two properties next door to each other (I do also), that were bought as housing blocks.
You've got two physical front doors, but space to add an internal door or take one of the door panels out. On a long-term let, this would possibly be permitted by a LL (which someone will advise, but I don't think you need planning permission for)
Benefit fraud investigators will have their work cut out!
CK💙💛 💔0 -
I posted on here a few years ago about under 25 Housing benefit not being up to standard when your made redundant at 24. The responses I got were less than supportive. Now its being scrapped I am sure these people might start to realise what it will do young peoples ambition and ability to get back on their feet after redundancy etc.0
-
AFAIK one of the things Frank Field wanted to see changed was the way that the benefits system encourages couples on benefit to live separately - there was a Panorama about "Britain's missing dads" in Jan 2011 that featured him talking about it. He was mostly talking about young unmarried parents - they interviewed several for the show, many of whom said that the dad would be willing to live with his gf and kids, but was living elsewhere because the mum would lose benefits if he moved in.
In many (most?) cases, I would assume they would be worse off, to quite a margin too if they did move in together.
Extra council tax, whole host of lost benefits, including stupid things like food vouchers.
It's much the same as the 16 hour rule where single parents who want to work more face losing ALL support as soon as they try to better themselves, so many simply can't take that step, as much as they want to. Many even turn down overtime available. I don't personally blame them.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »In many (most?) cases, I would assume they would be worse off, to quite a margin too if they did move in together.
Extra council tax, whole host of lost benefits, including stupid things like food vouchers.
It's much the same as the 16 hour rule where single parents who want to work more face losing ALL support as soon as they try to better themselves, so many simply can't take that step, as much as they want to. Many even turn down overtime available. I don't personally blame them.
Actually the Dad living in another flat is more complicated and in the end more expensive. Two lots of council tax and all the bills. The way things are going housing benefit will not pay all the rent, so thats two lots of rent to pay out of whatever benefit is left.
Better off in the future for Dads to live in the same household, that is the way all these cuts are going. It will free up more property.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards