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
pensioner & housing benefit
Comments
-
pmlindyloo wrote: »Interesting amount chosen. Would have to take into account those on means tested benefits (over 21) as they would lose more but strange for those earning a substantial amount to only have to, in theory, pay very little. (I know they are not liable and it is a reduction for the tenant). Perhaps they are taking into consideration those having to live at home for longer and making it easier for them to save for a deposit for a house.
Yes, the difference is substantial and I don't know what the thinking is. Having a flat rate certainly makes it easier to administer. Under HB it could be a problem if the claimant did not know the income of the non-dependant (quite often the case) or simply had difficulty getting information from the non-dependant to confirm their income.Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Some rules may be different in other parts of UK.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards