How can it be right that you can get so much money on benefits?!?!

It’s the same everywhere. LHA for a 3 bed is £600 pm here, market rates are £1200. A £600 shortfall that has to be found out of meagre benefits.

Social housing isn’t solely for the unemployed. Plenty of working folk live in council houses.

That is not unusual at all. There is £150-£200pm difference between the LHA and what a private rental costs where I live. If you are on UC, that is a massive chunk.

I did some calculations and there is a massive gap between what UC will pay in housing costs and the amount private landlords are charging. So most people will be paying a huge chunk of their UC that is meant for food on rent.

There are people who work who also get benefits. How does that work in your head?

And so they should. But the cap should apply to everyone, single or not. People who work for a living should be significantly better off than those who do not work and claim benefits.

Ffs not the amount of people who get 26k for rent is miniscule. Well certainly in scotland anyway .if you getting 10k in a salary you certainly don't get all that childcare paid .because that's only about 10 -15 hrs a week .everyone gets free nursery .in that same view why should the childless pay tax towards other folk nursery fees family allowance .it's never fair fir sonefolk but you get things when younger and hopefully get a pension. So then folk pay for you .this is only benefits bashing

75% of NMW is not a liveable amount of money.

A single person who is not working gets far less in benefits than a single person who is working in a NMW job.
Maybe look up the figures before spouting nonsense.

Nobody should be better off on benefits than someone who is working, Regardless of the "circumstances". The benefit cap should be set at 75% of NMW.

@JustAlice exactly! It's not fair. If you can 'afford ' a child in nursery or your own rent your remaining g cash is more or less the same if not less than someone on nothing.

The very obvious difference is that without that contribution, they wouldn’t be able to afford their rent or childcare and would end up unemployed and homeless.

Given the response (90% exasperation and daily mail hate), I suspect it may actually be a spectacular double bluff by a leftist bot 😂

OP drops a benefit bashing Daily Mail thread, doesn't respond to anyone and gets lots of replies. It's a bot. Please stop replying. I realise the irony of me replying.

Well yes a lot will go to landlords and childcare providers, but where do you think most of a non-benefit claimant’s wages go?? It’s still comparing like with like

God I get so sick of these threads. You know what, OP? If it's so easy to get benefits, and they pay so well, then by all means quit your job and live on benefits - you can buy a mansion with all your unearned cash, sip champagne in your pool of pounds and dine on steak prepared by your personal chef.

Or you could come back to the real world and be grateful you're not disabled or sick enough to require PIP, that you don't have a severly disabled or sick child, or you're not frantically trying to figure out how to survive when you're made homeless because you're 6 months late with mortgage payments/rent and no possibility of making the payments up.

Why don't you start a thread discussing how we raise everyone up rather than constantly bashing those at the very bottom because they're not quite as destitute as you think they should be?

@Joeninety
If you really want to address housing problems, look at asset price inflation caused by extreme wealth concentration. Blaming tenants for buying TVs distracts from much bigger threats we are facing as a society.

And the ridiculous government still pay to the tenant instead of the Landlord. Hence the wide screen TV's and deposit on the Range rover, whilst getting kicked out of their slum after a couple of years, to start the whole sorry process again..

Earnings are only deductible after a certain amount for anyone with kids. These work allowances are pretty generous and even then earnings are deducted on a taper. many part time workers have barely anything much deducted for earnings. UC is a pretty generous benefit in that respect, not so much for single people of course who don't get a work allowance.

It was changed after it became apparent that with inconsistent payments, it was plunging children into poverty and at the end of the day, it is about making sure children are still able to have food in their tummies despite their parent (or parents) sometimes.

Men who refuse to pay for their children should be dealt with but not at the expense of leaving their children to go hungry.

@Kirbert2 because it automatically lets men off the hook. Don't worry about paying for your kids, we will pick up the tab! If you father a child there needs to be a mandatory contribution for that child. £7 or however much is not good enough. I always wondered why we still say single mothers rather than parents. Now I know , dads simply don't need to handle any of the consequences.

Also how much can you get from an ex on top of a huge state hand out? It's nonsense. There is literally no financial insentive to bring up a family with both parents contributing. Nor any incentive to save money over £6000. Not make sound career decisions. Why would you bother to work your way up the ladder when you are just as well on minimum wage plus benifits.

That is deprivation of capital and it is illegal.

Yay another post attacking the poorest members of society

See, read and inwardly digest

https://benefitsinthefuture.com/tis-the-season-to-be-jolly-misleading-in-the-daily-mail/

Haven't read the full thread but surely most of that goes back to landlords and childcare providers, even it if it was true? You need to be looking at what isn't an outgoing to see what people get as a useable amount. Generally this is £400 per single adult and £300 a child per month. Any earnings are deductable. UC rent payments only the landlord gets to see. Childcare - parents have to pay this in advance and UC only pay the basic costs, not meals or consummables.