Do I have this right

ilikewatch

lozhazie wrote: »

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.

2 single people who are living together are likely to do their grocery shopping independently, cook at different times, each have their own TV licence, each have their own internet connection, computer etc. All of these things are likely to cost more than they would for a couple who are married or "living together as if they were married". Once 2 single people start shopping, cooking, buying things together etc.then they start to look more like a couple for benefits purposes and are likely to attract the attention of LTAHW investigation if claiming.

BigAunty

lozhazie wrote: »

...

Tell me again, AT WHAT POINT IS THE GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGING MARRIED COUPLES TO STAY TOGETHER?

Couples stay together because they want to, not because the taxpayer is happy to bribe them to continue their relationship.

Comparing the benefit rates for a single person versus a couple is like comparing apples with pears - benefits for couples have NEVER been calculated as twice the rate of single claimants.

From the absolute time the welfare state was established in the 50s, it is enshrined as a principle that couples should support each other rather than the public purse - for example, for means tested benefits, the two people's income is treated as a joint household income, not individually. This is something else that couple's often complain about on this forum ' we've got separate bank accounts, why can't they ignore my 30k income?', etc

BigAunty

lozhazie wrote: »

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. ...

For benefit purposes, it is irrelevant if the couple living together or married or not. They can be married, unmarried or in a civil partnership. A couple is a couple.

Currently, the public spending on benefits is greater than employees pay in Income Tax. This has rarely been breached in the past but is now the norm.

So your desire to receive individual benefits instead of the couple rate remains a pipe dream.

If you want to receive the £71 rate for JSA instead of the £55.72 share of the couple's rate, and you are confident that living alone will make you quids in because of the extra £15.28, and you are sure that the economy of scale that comes from sharing bills doesn't make it up

then just leave your wife

Sounds like she could probably do with a rest from your ranting.

Is this your new ID, Andy? Not sure as you normally bang on about disability and sickness benefits.

BigAunty

lozhazie wrote: »

We were chipping 100 per month to the rent to make it up, so out of our JSA we got (210x2-100) 320 per month (170 per fortnight). Under the split conditions, The rent would have been paid in full,... The benefit rules are really worked out in a strange way...

Why should the taxpayers of this country pay unemployed people to enjoy unoccupied rooms when there is a housing shortage?

There are people slogging their guts out in employment who also can't afford from their employment income to rent a property with spare rooms.

They are paying taxes to keep a roof over your head and I doubt they'd be happy to pay more taxes so you can have a largely unoccupied guest bedroom, hobby room or glorified storage cupboard at their expense.

BigAunty

lozhazie wrote: »

...I'm sure the decision to live in a two bedroom house for a married couple is more common as having to move when one is caught out as pregnant is not recommended, having to establish them selves in a new community and shift everything they own is very stressful and costly. So necessity for the possible future rather than choice.

Right, so every couple in their own self contained accommodation should have the right to be paid the higher 2 bedroom property rate of HB just in case they have an unplanned pregnancy? Great idea, not like there's a recession or an austerity programme or anything.

valk_scot

So basically what you're saying is that if I start sharing a house with someone (seperate rooms, total strangers at the beginning) and then somewhere along the line we start fancying each other and become a couple, the goverment will cut our benefits at this point? And a year later when we have an amicable break up and continue to share the house but nothing else the goverment will then up our benefit rate again? (Hah...) One might argue that it might be best not to be in too much of a hurry to tell the benefits folk every time you started shagging a flatmate then.....

JulieElizabeth

Oh gawd, one should stay away from reading the benefits boards if one doesn't want to raise one's blood pressure

margaretclare

Dunroamin wrote: »

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.

I must be thick, but I don't understand what this argument is all about.

DH and I have been happily married to each other these 10 years. We each get pensions income. We both tip into a joint account for household bills, food, share all costs. But we have a 2-bed bungalow. We seem to use all the space! In most 2-bed or 3-bed houses, the second or third bedroom is - in my experience - a tiddler, not big enough to get a proper bed into, big enough to use as an office or something like that, but not the same size as the main bedroom. When my first husband and I were looking to move, that was what we liked about this bungalow. Both bedrooms are the same size.

I don't see that the Government has anything to do with whether a couple are married or not married. We are married because that's the way we choose to live - we got married in church because we wanted to, that was our beliefs. What has the Government got to do with it?

BigAunty

margaretclare wrote: »

I must be thick, but I don't understand what this argument is all about.

... In most 2-bed or 3-bed houses, the second or third bedroom is - in my experience - a tiddler, not big enough to get a proper bed into, big enough to use as an office or something like that, but not the same size as the main bedroom. When my first husband and I were looking to move, that was what we liked about this bungalow. Both bedrooms are the same size.

I don't see that the Government has anything to do with whether a couple are married or not married.

The OP is dependent on housing benefit - if he was fully self supporting like you and your husband with your own place, he could live in a property as large as he likes. He's got the nark because he doesn't get to live in a property larger than his needs while its funded by the taxpayer.

But HB will only give a couple a 1 bedroom HB rate, not 2, so he's annoyed that the taxpayers aren't prepared to cough up extra so they can live in a larger place. He thinks this is outrageous because if two friends or siblings, lived together, for example, they'd have a room each so could afford a 2 bedroom property on benefits.

If the OP wants a bigger place without paying a top-up towards the rent from his benefits, he's going to have to move to a property where the rent is much cheaper than the Local Housing Allowance rates or pay his own rent from employment income.

sniggings

BigAunty wrote: »

The OP is dependent on housing benefit - if he was fully self supporting like you and your husband with your own place, he could live in a property as large as he likes. He's got the nark because he doesn't get to live in a property larger than his needs while its funded by the taxpayer.

But HB will only give a couple a 1 bedroom HB rate, not 2, so he's annoyed that the taxpayers aren't prepared to cough up extra so they can live in a larger place. He thinks this is outrageous because if two friends or siblings, lived together, for example, they'd have a room each so could afford a 2 bedroom property on benefits.

If the OP wants a bigger place without paying a top-up towards the rent from his benefits, he's going to have to move to a property where the rent is much cheaper than the Local Housing Allowance rates or pay his own rent from employment income.

gets to the heart of the matter again, you should change your name to bigjoan I must say I was a bit lost too what the OP's problem was.