Should benefits be based on disposable income ?

[dogsandbudgey]

do you think this would be a fairer idea? I’ve no idea how it would work but I think in a way there’s something interesting about the idea of it.
Ie after basic bills are paid / mortgage, rent etc

Of course not!

That's a ridiculous and unworkable idea.

Ok, can I ask why tho? I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just been to know why

UC is already means tested

Of course not. People that choose to buy expensive houses so have big mortgages shouldn’t be then able to claim more benefits WTF

No, that would be ridiculous.

And how exactly would it work ? Would claimants need to send in their bank statements and budgets every month? Would DWP start telling people what they can spend their money on. Where would you get the staff to do this? How would claims be calculated

Because people who have massive, self inflicted, outgoings would be able to claim benefits, and also build up equity on their houses.

The rich would just get richer.

I have no idea how it would work, it actually wouldn’t but I’m just curious what people would think if it could be done.

Why on earth would you think someone should be able to claim benefits if they've overstretched themselves on their mortgage?

No, of course not.

So say we have household income of 100k, so we buy a house worth 900k with takes up 90% of our income, why should we then be able to claim anything to help us live

No I don’t think so. In a couple of posts on here I have moaned that I am skint but I also admit that it’s self inflicted. I am spending a huge amount on my son this year on things I consider necessary but that is subjective so I do consider that it’s partly/ mainly my fault I’m struggling although I don’t think I’m being irresponsible.

I wouldn’t be entitled to any benefits anyway and I don’t claim anything but if I did I don’t think the tax payer should have to fund my expensive choices. I understand that you may just mean mortgage/ rent/ household bills whereas I am talking about other expenses but where would that end. Someone could then leave their heating on 247 knowing they would get extra benefit money if their bills were higher so they wouldn’t bother being frugal.

I get where you are coming from as it’s so unfair that some people have way more disposable income than others but I think that’s just life.

what if the area you lived in had a mortgage/ rent cap? Ie what about the flip side of families that dont necessarily NEED child support , or other benefits but are entitled to it? Should they be allowed to claim the money so that they can save it, use it for holiday, what ever the case may be etc? Sounds like I’m being knobby but I’m just throwing it out there .

Well surely it would just lead to people buying or renting a bigger property so they have “less” disposable income. Rent/mortgages are considered a priority debt. Also would the disposable income be after ALL bills? Things like sky, gym, car payments etc?

What people want is for people on UC to have no pets, holidays, days out, alcohol, chocolate, meat, haircuts, gym, insurance, sky, netflix etc or reliable car and to always have the very lowest energy, broadband and mobile phone tariff and heating to be off between April and November.

And for them to hand back any surplus money at the end of the month so they don't accumulate any savings.

No.

hth

I mean we don’t have a huge amount of disposable income after 2 x sets of private school fees. Obviously I don’t think we should receive benefits though because of that choice we’ve made 🙄

Having seen a post on here earlier today saying someone with a household income of 70k was getting UC, I think the whole system needs a rethink. That is crazy high money - and I'd wager more than the majority of households if you take 35k as the average salary.

Unfortunately there are people not on UC who are in that position!

Crazy idea, would never work, and open to abuse. Why should money be given to those with no clue as to budgeting?

Pretty obvious,really!

No, because some people have very expensive tastes and it would be very unfair if someone on 25k a year had to support someone on 100k just because they have a bigger house in an expensive area

I don't understand how someone in that position can get UC. My DS has a smaller household income, three children and isn't eligible for anything.

I get what you’re thinking of (I think…) but there’s no feasible way to assess what’s disposable income fairly.