UC salary threshold is £2500 pmc

Lots of private landlords rent to asylum seekers via Serco (paid for by the taxpayer). It all adds up to an unaffordable welfare bill.

At some point the country is going to run out of taxpayers. It's already over 50% who take out more than they pay in. Simple maths shows the situation is unsustainable.

https://news.sky.com/story/record-number-of-britons-receiving-benefits-that-amount-to-more-than-they-pay-in-tax-study-finds-12793349

I’m not talking about me, I’m not on benefits.

If you move to a cheaper area, the LHA rate is reduced so you’d still be in the same position. I live in the North. There aren’t any significantly cheaper areas. Round here is already considered cheap.

I am not at all surprised unfortunately.

LHA was set at the bottom third of the rental market. But with austerity and continued failure to uprate in line with price increases, it often does not even cover the cheapest properties.

Many people have a shortfall of hundreds of pounds a month even if they qualify for the maximum.

Well if they don't get benefits they are earning too much to claim anything so have more income to pay rent

(Many people on UC also pay tax!)

But people who don't get benefits have to pay rent from their after tax income with no help from welfare. In fact, UC housing element creates a floor for private rents as landlords know the minimum they can charge. So private renters who don't get anything towards their rent have to compete with others who do (and their taxes pay for it!).

I seem to recall (perhaps incorrectly?) there were zero limits on housing allowance previously - decades ago.

I distinctly recall a front page story where someone in (literally) a mansion was claiming interest on their mortgage via the benefits system etc.

Obviously, mortgage payments (even interest) are now more or less excluded from benefits. I assume in order to balance that out, the average rent/local LHA rate was created to prevent people living in mansions through choice taking the piss.

You need to relook at UC. With the standard allowance, 1 child, LCWRA and carer element you are eligible for UC with a monthly income of £2k. Even if you only had LCW (and therefore no monetary value on the claim) you would still be eligible.

There isn’t one set income threshold. It depends on the claimant’s circumstances.

The £2500 you mention is related to what is known as surplus earnings, not the UC threshold.

They move to a cheaper area. The Gov shouldn't be paying £1200 a month for someone to live in a specific area when much cheaper places are available within a relatively small radius (most of the time).

If people want to live in nice areas, they need to fund it themselves IMO.

I'm a lond parent earning under £2500 a month and I'm not entitled to anything apart from child benefit (which i'm grateful for). We get by.

Are you sure about that? Have you looked at Turn2Us or similar websites? Because when I was living with my ex, had one child at the time on middle rate DLA and he was on a similar wage, the only thing that lowered it compared to most situations was the mortgaged home rather than being entitled to LHA rates (which is not a complaint!). A good chunk of what we were entitled to in those circumstances was removed for me to claim carers allowance, but UC carers element added some back on.

I wonder if £350m of that £384m per week is where the Brexit Benefit went? 🙄

Yup, I believe the government pays c£20bn a year into the pockets of private landlords.

That's £384m or so per week, but remember, it's putting a roof over asylum seeker's heads at £7m per week that's crippling the country.

You’ve completely misunderstood what that £2500 is referring to. That amount is the ‘surplus earnings limit’, not the amount that you can earn up to in order to still qualify for UC support.

I, for example, take home closer to £2700pm at the moment and receive around £500pm in UC because I rent and pay over £1000pm for childcare. There are people whose take home pay and UC award will be much higher. It’s all based on individual circumstances, there is no ‘upper limit’.

If you’re going to go away and read something, at least do it properly 🙄

Is this research for an article? All the information you need is available online. You could try using the benefits calculator too

Nothing.

As was pointed out to you on your deleted thread and this one, a lot of the money goes into the pockets of private landlords.

Why indeed.

Yes it’s household income and we have to make a joint claim as we live together so HMRC report both of our incomes to be taken into account. I then have to report everytime I pay a childcare invoice. Then they pay us wrong every month and I spend all month asking them to correct it.

I was actually better off as a single parent and not working, and as a single parent and studying than I am now in a couple and working a band 5 professional job.

Single persons UC if they have a mortgage is less than £400 per month. Nothing above an income of £2500.

You were told this on your thread. It's easy to Google.

OP you asked MNHQ to delete your previous thread about benefits. Why have you started another one?

Rents are astronomical in some parts of the country. Lots of people will need help with that. Unless of course, you'd like all the low paid NHS and local government staff to move somewhere else.
UC also goes towards childcare so lone parents can work. My nursery bill for two dc's was more than I earnt.

no that isn't the net result

there is the housing element which varies from district to district and is a set amount - so in my district the amount os set at £600 for a 2 bed house, obviously it will also depend on your age as there are age restrictions on amounts if you are single.

In the next district the housing element is capped at £500 for a two bed house

to be honest you'd be lucky to find a private rental for less than £800 in my district, most are over £1000

Where I am the rate is £525 for a three bed, average rents are about £1200. I just don’t know how people manage.

It's not the benefits system that's wrong - as a previous poster said, it's that UC top ups allow companies to pay wages that people can't live on. A childless person on min wage, don't forget, will be paying tax on their already meagre wage and getting absolutely nothing back. Meanwhile fat cat CEOs and business owners are sitting on millions - that's what's wrong. The government encourages benefits bashing as a nifty piece of misdirection.