Dss/disability

moneyistooshorttomention

Thinking on about this - and, if I were a landlord, then I guess I'd have to have a "regret no DSS" in my adverts for tenants.

I wouldn't be happy about feeling I had to say that - as I've been unemployed myself (fortunately - I was in public sector housing at the time). The reason, in the main, being that the DWP seems to have a long list of excuses for docking peoples benefit these days. When I read through some of them the other day it struck me that even someone like myself (ie practical, forward-thinking, cynical) might have managed to fall foul of them and experience some docking of benefit:eek:

Hence - I would view those on disability benefit (instead of unemployment benefit) as a much safer bet than those on unemployment benefit. I would be able to google for myself and check out what sort of income level they would be likely to get and that it's a lot harder for the DWP to find excuses to dock their money.

That being the case - I'd emphasise that fact to landlords if I were in your position.

I must admit that, in your position, I certainly wouldn't be regarding myself as coming under the banner of "dss claimants" - as I would be taking that as meaning unemployed people only. But then....I've even seen the odd few people describing State pensions as "benefits" - when they clearly aren't, as they are "pensions".

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I must admit that, in your position, I certainly wouldn't be regarding myself as coming under the banner of "dss claimants" - as I would be taking that as meaning unemployed people only. But then....I've even seen the odd few people describing State pensions as "benefits" - when they clearly aren't, as they are "pensions".

Someone can 'imagine' what they like, but it won't change anything.

One factor for consideration is that those who are not employed, for whatever reason, tend to be at home more, so therefore appear likely to subject a rental property to greater wear and tear.

Again, whether this is imagined or true is largely irrelevant.

State pensions have never been completely funded by contributions and have always been paid from current taxation, so they are obviously benefits, whatever the government or people choose to call them.

teddysmum

Davesnave wrote: »

State pensions have never been completely funded by contributions and have always been paid from current taxation, so they are obviously benefits, whatever the government or people choose to call them.

Possibly because some drawing a pension never paid NI, but what about those who paid well beyond the required number of years needed to qualify ?

Davesnave

teddysmum wrote: »

Possibly because some drawing a pension never paid NI, but what about those who paid well beyond the required number of years needed to qualify ?

They still wouldn't have paid-in enough. NI pays for much more than pensions.

It's awarded as a right. i.e. not subject to a means test, but people have the wrong idea if they think they paid for it completely. In modern times, they paid for someone else's, in a variety of different ways.

moneyistooshorttomention

I guess that's the thing - ie its a right. It doesn't matter whose State pension we are told we are paying for - the fact is that we will regard the one person we are funding/helping to fund as being ourselves personally.

Actually - there is the point that I believe the statistics indicate that people are healthier than they otherwise would be if they retire at retirement age (ie rather than being forced to work on against their will).

That fact must mean the NHS is saving money on paying out medical care that it would otherwise have to pay for (ie from that extra ill health).

Add the fact that people retiring means jobs are being released for younger people to have the chance of getting them - and thus saving on having to pay out unemployment benefit to them.

Then there's the fact that many retired people are doing voluntary work or providing childcare for their adult "children". That is obviously helping keep the "wheels" of society turning.

A lot of "swings and roundabouts" in that from the knock-on effects.

silvercar

Anyone in receipt of child benefit, child tax credit or working tax credit is also getting benefits, so the term "no DSS" when strictly applied leaves out a lot of people.

moneyistooshorttomention

Good point silvercar - and I certainly class those things as "benefits" personally.

theartfullodger

MOST people in UK are in receipt of some benefit - CB, DLA, PIP, JSA, ESA, State pension etc etc.

Over a million working people get some HB.

sportsarb

If you work alongside getting DLA/PIP then I wouldn't bother mentioning it.

In any case, they are using 1980's jargon, you can say with all honesty that you've had no contact with the 'DSS' and not be lying.

Pixie5740

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

But then....I've even seen the odd few people describing State pensions as "benefits" - when they clearly aren't, as they are "pensions".

The state pension is a benefit. The government certainly classes it as a benefit whether or not you agree with it.

According to the gov.uk website, those claiming certain benefits (the list of benefits includes the state pension) are automatically entitled to another benefit, the £10 Christmas bonus and yet another benefit the Winter Fuel Allowance.