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.
📨 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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Do I have this right
Comments
-
enabledebra wrote: »But don't you agree that some of that difference in lifestyle might be because you were spending £100 per month of your income on a spare room... again I'm not saying you shouldn't have done that or ignoring that it might not have been a completely free choice but the cost was there eating into the income available for other things.
edit ps - I agree people shouldn't have to wait until a baby arrives to be able to get 2 bedrooms paid for, it just creates anxiety and stress for the sake of saving a few months extra housing benefit and is a ridiculous rule.
I agree totally with your first point but you surely can't be saying that couples should be allowed to claim rent for 2 beds just in case there's a pregnancy? Would you follow that through by saying that couples with 1 child should be able to claim for a 3 bed just in case? Where would it end?0 -
The goverment sure don't make it easy when its cheaper not to be married/in a relationshipNeed to find time for more comping
Trying to lose weight through Slimming world0 -
I don't see why the Government should pay for a spare room. Have one by all means, but subsidise it yourself.
If two single people are sharing a two bedroomed house and each have a room, then there is no spare room to subsidise.(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
tanyamumof3 wrote: »The goverment sure don't make it easy when its cheaper not to be married/in a relationship
Whereas two can't live as cheaply as one, two together can live far more cheaply than two apart. One lot of bills, insurance etc, economies of scale in buying food and household goods.0 -
I agree totally with your first point but you surely can't be saying that couples should be allowed to claim rent for 2 beds just in case there's a pregnancy? Would you follow that through by saying that couples with 1 child should be able to claim for a 3 bed just in case? Where would it end?
No I'm not saying that- I've caused confusion by misreading one of the posts- I thought they had chosen a 2 bed because his partner was pregnant and they would soon need the 2 rooms. The extra room rate doesn't kick until a baby on the way is actually born which I think is ridiculous as it means people are being asked to move house at a stressful time or pay for the extra room themselves pending the birth to avoid this. The rules should kick in a few months prior to a due date IMO.0 -
enabledebra wrote: »No I'm not saying that- I've caused confusion by misreading one of the posts- I thought they had chosen a 2 bed because his partner was pregnant and they would soon need the 2 rooms. The extra room rate doesn't kick until a baby on the way is actually born which I think is ridiculous as it means people are being asked to move house at a stressful time or pay for the extra room themselves pending the birth to avoid this. The rules should kick in a few months prior to a due date IMO.
Perhaps if you can't afford to pay your own living and housing costs but are relying on taxpayers to support you it is not a good idea to increase the burden.0 -
krisskross wrote: »Perhaps if you can't afford to pay your own living and housing costs but are relying on taxpayers to support you it is not a good idea to increase the burden.
People in and out of work rely on housing benefit especially in high rent areas. Using NHS maternity services is a burden on taxpayers as is educating children in state schools etc. I don't think we should restrict parenthood to those who are self sufficient and more of us than we like to think would fail the test.0 -
Agreed Man over board. I just think it was amazing that the difference was so big. Our friends live together as singles, and while we struggled they had excess cash to go on trips down south every month, buy big screen tvs and game consoles.
Your friends might well fall foul of the 'living together' rules if they do a lot together.
For anyone who is interested, here's a link to how a DWP decision maker should work out if people are living together (its from the Decision Makers Guide - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/decision-makers-guide/ - Volume 3)
Chapter 11 – Living together as husband and wife or as civil partners
Happy reading!0 -
I never quite understand this 'modern' attitude and type of flippant comment towards living together / moving in / remaining married etc etcTell me again, AT WHAT POINT IS THE GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGING MARRIED COUPLES TO STAY TOGETHER?
Exactly when did the Government become cupid?. You stay together because you have found a soulmate whom you want to spend the rest of your life with. The Government dont come into it.
As far as I know, the phrase 'For better or worse' predates the current benefits situation."Dont expect anybody else to support you, maybe you have a trust fund, maybe you have a wealthy spouse, but you never know when each one, might run out" - Mary Schmich0 -
What I don't understand is the attitude that two married people need less to live off that two people living together who aren't married. Once two people get married they don't suddenly merge into one living entity, the don't like exactly the same things do the exact same stuff at the exact same time, Married couples retain their tastes which are different they do things separately. use electric at different times, wash separately, travel to different places. It costs the same amount. Also whinging members on here, "Why should we pay for this and that for people on benefits?" Seriously? Lets take this to the extremes shall we. I am now paying tax. So why should I pay for education for children I don't have? Why pay for an army in a war I don't support? Why should my Tax money go toward a government I didn't vote in? The list could be endless, 179.5bn goes on "helping others" 8bn for the unemployed 21.8bn for children. I was astonished about the figures I was presented with about the amounts people get paid who are in different circumstances, some how the conversations always turns to how bad people feel that they are paying tax and some of that tax money goes on the unfortunate. Get over it already, if you don't want your tax money going on things you don't agree with you have three choices 1. Stop working and therefore paying tax. 2. Become a member of the government who actually can do something about it. 3. Shut up and put up. But this is only my opinion and are personal only to me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
