It’s not fair those renting get more universal credit?

But they don't have the same needs!

You'd be paying the same to people who owned houses outright as to people who pay 4-figure sums in rent every month, and to people without children as to people with.

Which would be bonkers, frankly.

... but if the rent is lower than the maximum amount, they only get the actual amount included in their UC.

(This wasn't the case when they first trialled the whole LHA notion back in the early '90s, and for a little while people were getting more than their rent.)

The only extra renters get is towards paying rent.
Why on earth should UC pay someone's mortgage?!?!?! Imagine if someone who just bought a property, suddenly became disabled for life (god forbid, of course) and UC paid their mortgage? The disabled person then passes away and their none-disabled kids inherit the house. Paid almost entirely by UC. Can you see how that wouldn't sit right with tax payers?

Also, owning a property is an asset. Whilst you absolutely can still claim UC whilst owning a property, they will not pay for the mortgage of said asset. Unless you're disabled, UC is not intended to be a permanent claim. Especially if you have assets which you could potentially sell to make ends meet if needed

Even if their costs are different?

Showing my age here, but IIRC in the sitcom Bread, the families owned each others houses to claim housing benefit.

That's exactly what happens though.

After 3 months on UC, claimants can get support for mortgage interest added to their UC. It takes the form of a loan and is secured against the property, so is repaid when the property is sold.

I would support that as I agree people with mortgages are struggling. However, the condition would be a charge put on the property so the money was repaid at a later date should the home owner profit from house purchase. That way both tenant and owner occupier are supported to keep a roof over their head in tough times, but neither profits from public money. Fair?

"Helping people up is cheaper than dragging them down."

Love this, @calligraphee !

And so true. There's been a lot of research into the effects of poverty on health, inc mental health. It's grim, and expensive.

Yes it’s called fraud

I think this is irrelevant now. If OP sold her house it would be to buy another house. If you’re on UC with children, you won’t ever be made homeless anyway, so it doesn’t matter. And don’t start with ‘but OP would get to choose her house..’ as most people get to choose fuck all these days as prices through the roof

Wonder if there’s a way to rent your own property back to yourself and claim UC for it 😅

Why? When down the line one will still be in a precarious housing situation and one will have an asset? How do you make that make sense?

Exactly. As I said, needs a huge overhaul…

If you are a BTL landlord and your tenants are on UC, the rent is paid to you from the public purse. Usually via the tenant, but in some cases directly to you the landlord.

Which is exactly why we need more social housing, to stop the taxpayer buying assets for individuals.

Council housing is self-financing over the medium-long term. The council borrows the money (at low interest rates) and builds the houses. The rental income, less maintenance and management costs, repays the borrowing. Once it's repaid, the subsequent rental income can be used to finance the building of more council housing.

When Thatcher introduced RTB, she pretty much killed a cash cow.

You will be happier if you don't compare yourself with others. There are a million and one injustices in the world. I don't think this issue should keep you preoccupied. One could look at the situation and say the couple are paying more tax than you and therefore enabling you to access benefits. Life is tough and unfair and sometimes you have to make the best of a difficult situation. If the couple you're worrying about get less, you won't get any more.

That doesn’t answer my question.

presumably, a renter won’t automatically get the maximum amount of UC, the rent has to be high enough to be eligible?

eg, x2 renters have a 2 bed flat, one rent is £800pm, the other is £1500pm, the

Would they both get the same £200pm housing UC? Or is there a cut off so the rent has to be over say £1100 to get any UC contribution.

Because the landlord isn't the one claiming the UC! That's obvious. What do you suggest, that we go back to people on benefits being barred from renting certain properties? Do you not see how as someone with a mortgage you will still come out far better off than the renters you are resenting in the future because you will have an asset you can sell?

I'm surprised that they get help with council tax, tbh.

My income (pensions and earnings) is just under £2k a month and I'm not entitled to any money off mine apart from the 25% single occupier discount.

Thing is most areas the rent is set so low that unless you've got a council house you are paying considerably more than £200 on top of that, so instead of helping those on a low income what it actually does is take money from the tax payer and give it to the private landlord. Which makes sense as a lot of landlords vote or donate to the Tory party. On the other hand council housing the money goes from the tax payer back into the housing owned publicly, and is there for the next person who needs it (disregarding right to buy of course). IMO the government should not be supporting anyone in paying for private assets be that by paying individual mortgages or the landlords expanding property portfolios. But the current system does seem unfair which any exploitative system will, and the current system is exploiting the housing shortage for the benefit of the landlords, and nobody else is gaining anything from it. And yes I know it's not all landlords, actually a lot of small time landlords do worse under this system also because of the inflated prices due to those who can increasingly afford to monopolise the market (an pay their way politically to maintain a system fixed to their benefit).

I wouldn’t be happy with my taxes paying someone’s mortgage… rent yes because if you’re renting you don’t have a house an an asset.

Your post doesn't seem to have anything to do with renters ...? Although it does seem unfair that a couple bringing in £60k to a household would receive extra financial support from the government, I wouldn't have thought they'd need it 🤔

The "need" would depend on how much their rent is and how many children they have. If they rent in the SE and have a couple of kids, especially if there are childcare costs, I can quite see how they need it.

Take home pay on £30k would be around the £2k mark, I think, after pension and student loan payments, less if they have a season ticket loan as well. The average rent for a 3-bed place where I live is over £1,800 a month, so almost a whole salary. (We also have the 4th highest council tax in England, just to add to the joy.)