Is receiving £30k pa on benefits “living in poverty”?!

2.5k a month!!!! As a couple we live on 30k a year, have no debts and live comfortably. Not entitled to benefits as both work and no small kids.

It's going to be mostly rent some rents are outrageous im paying £500 ish a month some people are spending £2000 a month for the same three bed house the difference is i can afford mine and work people with massive rents will struggle to work and pay and end up not paying then get evicted its a struggle that shouldn't exist in my opinion

You don’t think public sector workers also pay tax and fund theirs and others lives?!

What on earth does this mean?

It isn’t only families who receive benefits?

There is an old stigma that people on benefits are ‘poor’. It was the case many years ago. But now the reality is they are more better off than most working people. I know people on benefits who have cleaners, drive & maintain cars, enjoy meals out and other non essential things which is considered a luxury.

Most people would like/want to own their home, I think. If you have pulled that off, you don't risk losing it. Only people whose income is paid from the public purse (aka anyone who pays tax) can be flippant about it. Because someone else is funding your life.

It’s definitely increasing & so frustrating as it makes any debate redundant.

Whatever happened, my suggestion of getting a job (now) would stand. Whether a stay at home mum or benefit claimant, if benefits were stopped, then clearly she can no longer afford not to work. There’s many posting on here stating ‘amongst all my friends and family claiming benefits’. Why is it so common for so many people to know lots of people claiming benefits?

Why keep having more children in that situation though?

People are so outraged by the idea of mortgage payers getting help that they don't think of the bigger picture. If that person loses their home they will get more benefits. They will possibly never get back on the property ladder and will therefore be paying rent into old age and need help with that. A few months support when they need it would be far more cost effective in some cases.

The work allowances and taper rates seem very generous to me but then people have to be incentivized to work apparently.

How will they have less money? If the young person is disabled and unable to work they will get UC + LCWRA ( although LCWRA for new claimants is reducing from April ) + PIP themselves which will likely work out to way more than the parent got for them on UC. It's just a matter of working out what that young person pays their parents towards their keep and care. As a household they are not going to be worse off. The parents would only be significantly worse off if the young person moved into residential care for example.

This. People who work and get universal credit are not raking in loads of "extras".

You still do now, the issue is the interest is now generally a tiny part of the monthly payment and you’ll soon be in serious debt in with help paying the interest

Oh god I heard that, seemed total rage bait tbh, she had 6 kids, all SEN, she didn’t work, partner also didn’t work as “disabled”. Whatever he had wrong didn’t stop his cock functioning clearly.

As for the money. Plenty of people take that home for working full time. It’s not a lot to raise that number of kids, but I’m not sure what else people expect for doing nothing.

How likely is that? Most people won't own a property. If they are a young family, their mortgage is probably 70+% of the equity.

This kind of reply - deliberate misinterpretation, accusation and then an exclamation is so common on here.

It's either some kind of AI program churning out shite or posters using a hackneyed format to hammer home an agenda.

True

This is the real question.
The children shouldn’t suffer, but whichever side you come down on, it will undoubtedly be the kids who suffer.

And what if there was a ton of equity in the property which they could release by selling?

I think they should have a modest amount of help to keep the show on the road because not helping will mean them losing their home and requiring more expensive help.

It makes no sense for the government to be happy to pay money towards a landlord’s mortgage but not towards someone who lives in their own mortgaged home

It makes sense because they sold off a load of social housing & haven’t built enough. People still need to be housed or where do you think they should go? It’s just another element that has been outsourced.

It’s why the US is an interesting and informative example: welfare in the US isn’t linked to your tax contributions in quite the same way as it is in e.g. Norway or Germany, and housing demand in HCOL areas is on a similar level to the U.K.; but their model of providing housing payments to owner-occupiers has shown successful outcomes.

If it’s true as a pp said that an adult in the family is disabled and so are several children, then that family will be recieving way more than 30k. It sounds like PIP and DLA were not included in the amount. That family won’t be in poverty.