Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

Who really gets £500+ weekly state benefits?

(713 Posts)
vivizone Wed 21-Nov-12 21:04:49

I find this shit so hard to believe. Reading the media, you would think this was a common figure on life on benefits.

Yesterday and today's Metro newspaper - people writing in saying they agree with the cap of £500 and why should people be sat on their arse and be rewarded by £500 per week. . Why should they earn £200 per week working and people are getting £500 a week doing nothing.

Seriously, who gets this £500 per week that is being peddled out of the media? I spent 7 months out of work after redundancy and I could not live on the pittance I received for me and my children. I do not know how people do it. I really don't. I had a decent redundancy package and that was the only way I could make it.

How many people do you know (forget the newspaper stories) that are RECEIVING £500 or more every week? I thought so.

How come if life is/was that cushy on benefits, not enough people are/were packing in their jobs to join a life of riley?

We have been had. Life on benefits is HARD and DEMORALISING. I have tried it and I can tell you you get PEANUTS.

The reason why stories run on people living in million dollar homes/getting thousands a week in benefits is because it is RARE. It is SO rare, that it gets reported on.

Bogeyface Netherlands Tue 27-Nov-12 20:51:21

No, they are not allowed as no more housing is needed in the area i live in. Housing is needed in cheaper areas so the focus is on there.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Tue 27-Nov-12 21:03:40

Developers were put off building partly because of the old law that said a certain percentage of the housing stock they created had to be handed over for social housing. This decreased their profit margin and then the recession came along which stopped people getting mortgages so easily, and building houses stopped being the money maker it once was.

The law has now been changed, so that might help ease the situation.

Property developers are in it to make money. They aren't going to build houses unless they know they can make a big enough profit to make the risk worthwhile.

garlicbaubles Tue 27-Nov-12 21:25:48

Thanks, Bogey, I see ... well, sort of confused It's not immediately clear why cheaper housing has to be in a cheaper area, but I sense this is going to get tediously complicated!!

Outraged, property developers tend to be in it to make rather too much money, rather too quickly. I'm sure there are honourable exceptions ... but what's wrong with being more like the developers of the Thirties, or even the Sixties, who cashed in on massive demand for affordable housing and still managed to build well-constructed, resident-friendly, energy-efficient abodes which are in demand to the present day?

Mosman Wed 28-Nov-12 00:37:28

I actually meant the state - the housing benefit is feeding you, or housing you be grateful for what you do have instead of moaning about what you don't or do something about standing on your own feet.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 28-Nov-12 01:08:24

Nice attitude there mosman but what's standing on your own 2 feet got to do with the garden step?

garlicbaubles Wed 28-Nov-12 01:28:37

Sometimes I happen across people whose smug pomposity makes me wish a severe reversal of fortune upon them.

expatinscotland Wed 28-Nov-12 02:30:29

'I actually meant the state - the housing benefit is feeding you, or housing you be grateful for what you do have instead of moaning about what you don't or do something about standing on your own feet.'

The housing benefit is feeding them because their government subsidises their employers from doing it themelves off the backs of their honest work and you say they're a bunch of feckless losers and moaners, and yet, why aren't you selling up? Because from what you said it was because you couldn't get what you paid for it and then some, correct me if I'm wrong and my apologies if I am, and you say that's standing on your two feet. You say you're losing £200 a month by letting out your property and the only one to gain by your selling it is the bank, then why aren't you selling up and re-investing the gains because you're allowed to, without penalty, in certain vehicles. So why aren't you doing that?

expatinscotland Wed 28-Nov-12 02:45:05

You say your tenants are enjoying the fruits of your hard work by paying money to hire the space you let then why are you letting it to them for money if it's a loss to you?

Because you are speculating that that space will appreciate in 20 years time and if it doesn't then how are you any less guilty of a poor financial decision than they?

You think you can't have the rug pulled from under you just because you're you, and you planned it all and ill luck never got in your way? Well, let me tell you, that phrase was from my father who was born in the Great Depression and grew up very, very poor, but he took no man, no woman, for anything less than what they were and always told me, 'You are a renter until the deed is in your name and in your hand.' And bought well, well below what he could have, there was no such thing as 'interest only mortgage' when he bought and he lived in the same house and still does 41-years-later.

He never judged a soul but by his own worth that he could see because he said sometimes, a person can get down on luck no matter what he or she does.

Now he's sitting pretty, on a house that has appreciated massively in value, a great private pension and state pension as well, but far be it from him to label those who came after him and didn't experience his good fortune as lazy, loser scroungers when he'll likely live another 20 years and needing to pay someone minimum wage to help him get out of bed.

Guess his 78 years taught him more than you. Maybe he just opened himself up to learn otherwise.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Wed 28-Nov-12 07:54:13

Because you are speculating that that space will appreciate in 20 years time and if it doesn't then how are you any less guilty of a poor financial decision than they?

Landlords take a risk when they invest in property. When they become accidental landlords through circumstance, they are still at risk, or the risk of buying property has already shown itself and that's why they are landlords in the first place.

I find it very strange that the people on this thread that are strong opposed to cuts in benefits are the only ones using words like scroungers, or scum.

Garlic, in the thirties, and even the sixties, property developers didn't have so many restrictions as they do now so it was easier to make a profit. They didn't have to pay as much for land in the first place, and they didn't have to worry about the cost of risk assessing everything and all the health and safety measures that they do now. It was a completely different time.

DudeIAmSoFuckingRock Wed 28-Nov-12 10:01:55

mosman- you take my breath away.

Mosman Wed 28-Nov-12 11:03:50

You'll know how I feel when I hear people complaining £500 a week in benefits isn't enough then.

DudeIAmSoFuckingRock Wed 28-Nov-12 11:14:03

how much do you let your Uk property for Mosman and what's the LHA rate for that size property in the area?

takataka Wed 28-Nov-12 14:28:16

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now