Working families £18k worse off than benefits claimants after budget

This is the Daily Fail.

What they seem to have conveniently forgotten is that if you lose your job and apply for Universal Credit, you have to prove to them you are spending 35 hours a week looking for a job. Tbey will also make you go on courses. The exception is if they have deemed through an incredibly rigiourous process of form-filling, supplying reams of hospital letter and other documents and then going through a gruelling healith assessment that you are too unwell or too disabled to work.

I think it is outrageous tbat wages are so lour of step with costs that people in full time work still need UC.

I’m not sure what anyone expected after voting Labour. And yes I’ll be closing the door firmly.

They were the words used by by family member. I don’t know the ins and out of the system having never claimed personally.

Why did they fight hard for a diagnosis to 'maximise' their benefits when it isn't necessary to have a diagnosis for your child to apply for DLA?

Funny how it is always ADHD.

I just can’t get my head around the fact that Reeves based all this on lies anyway - there is no, nor has there ever been, a huge black hole deficit. So most of her targeting of average families is due to appeasing the rabid frothing at the mouth lefties on her back benches. So was just done out of spite. Totally unnecessary.

Why did they fight hard for a diagnosis to 'maximise' their benefits when it isn't necessary to have a diagnosis for your child to apply for DLA?

I have an extended family member who rents a home whilst their children are under 18. Her boyfriend does not live with them (honest) when he is home and so she claims benefits as a single parent whilst working part time. He owns 3 properties which he rents out. He also has a very good job overseas and comes home for less than 90 days to pay less UK tax and they have lots of nice holidays - car for the teenager etc. They fought hard to have their 3rd child diagnosed with ADHD to maximize their benefits.

They have stated they will buy a property outright when the youngest turns 18 in 7 years time. I am sure they not the only ones playing the system.

She will get help with housing but in the form of help with her mortgage interest, if she has a mortgage. Some people own outright.

Sorry it is a lot of words. Shall I get my crayons out?

If you cut rent, then how will people who do not own their homes have a roof over their head?
If you pay for people's mortgages, then why would anyone work when the government can just literally buy them a house? That they can sell, or pass to their children.

Home owners are not being penalised. They can get help with the interest, which is that will keep the bank off their back. Long term claimants such as those unable to work can and do lose their houses. But most people with a mortgage claim UC when in-between jobs and end up back on their feet again. Benefits are not a reward for doing "the right thing" such as buying a home, they are a safety net.

People who rent are not doing it on purpose to claim benefits. They are people who can not afford to buy. Even if you have your rent paid, if you are renting in the private sector, you are not in secure housing.

That’s a lot of words. The reality of it is PP is not being given any help with housing. Someone who rents is. That’s unfair.

The easiest way is to remove housing element and just pay a flat rate UC to be spent as the person wishes.

Go on benefits then! Be stupid not to, surely?

Except you wont because saying people on benefits are better off than workers on moderate wages is crap.

We have a three child household, and earn just a bit too much to claim.

Yes we struggle.

No, I dont begrudge a household earning less than us to claim a bit to top up low wages.

This is what the vast majority of uc claimants claim for. To be able to go to work and fill all the lower paid positions, you know, shop workers,.cleaners, teaching assistants and the like. Orange they should just get their pittance for working and then go home to a tent? Would that suit better?

Good golly, how gullible some are to keep going on about ridiculous cases dredged up to keep us attacking each other while the billionaires get richer.

If you cut rent, then how will people who do not own their homes have a roof over their head?
If you pay for people's mortgages, then why would anyone work when the government can just literally buy them a house? That they can sell, or pass to their children.

Home owners are not being penalised. They can get help with the interest, which is that will keep the bank off their back. Long term claimants such as those unable to work can and do lose their houses. But most people with a mortgage claim UC when in-between jobs and end up back on their feet again. Benefits are not a reward for doing "the right thing" such as buying a home, they are a safety net.

People who rent are not doing it on purpose to claim benefits. They are people who can not afford to buy. Even if you have your rent paid, if you are renting in the private sector, you are not in secure housing.

Well I think it’s unfair. Benefits in my eyes should be a safety net. For unemployment, illness, misfortune etc.

You should be treated equally and not penalised for trying to stand on your own two feet nor awarded more for sitting in rent and expecting gov to pay for it forever.

I don’t know what the answer is. Cut rent from UC, Or add mortgages. Or just give a flat rate of x money to be used for whatever. But the current system is not acceptable.

A lot of people on benefits are working. Why do non of the posters whinging about benefits ever criticise the companies paying shit wages that need to be topped up by benefits?

She probably isn't. She wont get help with the interest on her mortgage for 3 months. People have lost their houses when on UC, especially when they are no longer able to work.
But UC is not there to pay off your asset. Paying off private landlords asset is a whole different thing, and is more about the lack of affordable and social housing.
It is all a mess.

Are they all working full time, or 15 hours per week to claim maximum benefits?
I suspect the latter when they quote ‘working in receipt of benefits’ figures.

Maybe they own their house outright and don't have any housing costs?

A lot of people on benefits are working. Why do non of the posters whinging about benefits ever criticise the companies paying shit wages that need to be topped up by benefits?

Yes but private rentals also paying for someone’s asset.

PP above saying they get 400. I assume because homeowner. What are benefits for? Why are they not getting a housing allowance but someone living in rent is. Makes no sense.

All housing has rocketed. How is PP paying her roof over her head on £400 a month. And other people get thousands for housing.

It’s a bloody disgrace.