AIBU to hate the line "why should people on housing benefit live in homes that working people can't afford?"

[standupandbecounted]

"Why should people on housing benefit live in houses that working people could not afford?"

I keep seeing this line being thrown about in the media. Along with stories about families, usually with an average of eight kids, claiming a shocking level of housing benefit.The government is going to cap housing benefit to prevent this. Reasonable, but not the whole story.
A a less publicised proposal is to drop the level of Local Housing Allowance(LHA) from the 50th centile to the 30th centile.Local housing allowance is currently set at the median-middle value- of private rents in your local area. In my area the LHA is nowhere near the proposed cap. The maximum I can claim for a 2 bedroom property (I have 2 kids) is 126.92 per week. For a three bedroom it is £150 per week. Shelter have estimate that the average loss for a for a two bedroom tenant in my area will be £12 per week.( I assume this is based on predicted rent levels)
Loss per area here

I am renting a two bedroom flat for myself and two children, aged 18 months and 5. There is no outdoor space, it is not large and not in an exclusive area. The soundproofing is poor and the tenants upstairs are fond of partying way into the early hours. Hardly luxury housing that working people can't afford. I believe this myth about HB claimants living in the best properties does not represent the reality for the majority of us. I have tried to find somewhere better but most landlords will not take HB or children. I have put my name down on the waiting list for council housing but have been awarded thr lowest priority level. I will never get one with that banding.

The thing that upsets me most is the "working people" bit, a lot of HB claimants ARE working people! Housing benefit is also available to people who don't earn enough to cover their rent. Most low income people cannot access council housing anymore. They are forced to rent on the private market, where rents are to high to be affordable on low incomes. This is the case in most areas, not just London.

So, AIBU to feel angry that people on housing benefit are being misrepresented and subjected to unfair cuts?

I didn't say I care.

It's just a pretty weak response to another post, to resort to snide little remarks (especially when it doesn't even respond to what's been written)

My friend is on disability benefit and has a bigger house than mine, a bigger income than mine and yet is always going on about being poor and asking me to help out! I don't begrude disability benefit but I do worry that people on benefit have a distorted view of how much people who are not on benefit earn. Any stuff I have extra to her is paid for by debt - true its easier to get debt when you are being paid for work rather than on benefit, but the rest of my stuff is there because of horrible self-discipline and cheap living. The friend I refer to here eats a lot of take-away and ready meals (not because of disability, as her disability doesn't stop shopping or cooking) and that is why she has less spare money.

If she had three children, she could get an extra bedroom and a garden. It doesn't matter how many kids I have, I only get a bigger house when I earn more - that part just doesn't seem fair.

When doing some work in the last general election I went to a street on one of the most expensive estates and there were three five bedroom houses with gardens that were occupied by families where both adults are on long term benefit (not disability benefit) and are living off child benefit, their rent is paid for and they have more disposable per week than I do. That too seems unfair,

"I do worry that people on benefit have a distorted view of how much people who are not on benefit earn"

Of course, because all people on benefits have never worked before in their lives

no, even people who were working can assume their income is lower on benefit because it is all paid piecemeal - i know that I often use the £60 per week as the comparison when in reality the income is £65 per week, plus £47 child benefit per week plus £150 housing benefit a week, plus £30 council tax benefit a week plus £500 child trust fund payments, free school meals (worth say £10 a week) ie. £1308 per month, plus the additional child trust fund payments adding £41 per month.

That is the same as the take-home income of someone on a salary just over £21K.

It does seem like there is a lot of willful misunderstanding here.

Others have said it but I'm going to say it again.

Welfare should support those who have no choice. That means those who are disabled or have disabled children. Those who must be full time carers for others. Those who strive but have fallen on hard times through illness or bad luck (business going bust, job loss etc).

Does anyone honestly dispute this?

Welfare should not be a choice. The government does not owe you a living long term (unless you have no choice - see above). If you are capable of working you should work or at least be looking for work. Benefits should be a stop gap.

Now the OP asked: Why should people on housing benefit live in homes that working people can't afford.

Can anybody give me a sensible answer?

interesting, but faced with two sources of income, benefit or work, it is not sensible financial management to go for the lowest income out of principle. What is really the issue here is how little companies are paying their lower paid staff - lower paid staff are only earning as much as the dole - that is scandalous! The reason they can is because the banks are lending to personal borrowers.. but the banks are also syphoning off the money saved by businesses paying the low wages... banks win every time, companies win most of the time, and we borrow money to susidise our low wages.

If companies are paying as low as the benefit, they should be ashamed

I agree Heroine that the lack of a living wage is a scandal. The issue is market forces, cheap foreign labor and the like.

As I said in an earlier post people will always chose the option that gives them the most money. This is true of landlords who when faced with the choice to rent at market value (inflated perhaps by HB) or you selling your car or a business. If I owned a business of course I would look to see where I could maximize profits and probably do that either by paying as low a wage as possible or moving operations overseas.

How do we balance the need to pay people a living wage without sending companies overseas?

IMO opinion there is no easy answer and no political party will ever be able to find it without pissing off one group or another.

"What the issue is really about is piss taking breeders who benefit from our tax money by breeding more children than the taxpayers themselves can reasonably afford."

I never said that was right.What I have an issue with is the abitrary nature of the housing benefit cuts.The fact that those not living in luxury homes with excessive rents are also facing a cut.It seems this fact has been buried beneath headlines of capping the extreme end.It takes no account of the deserving and undeserving, but treats us as though we are all undeserving.
If I got snippy earlier and took comments the wrong way it was because some posters seemed to be trying to blame me for my situation.It also seemed like some of the posts were saying most people on benefits are to blame for it.

Now the OP asked: Why should people on housing benefit live in homes that working people can't afford.

Can anybody give me a sensible answer?

My answer is that a lot don't. The reason I hate that phrase is is that the cases of people having great homes on HB are being used as justification to subject us all to cuts.

"How do we balance the need to pay people a living wage without sending companies overseas?

IMO opinion there is no easy answer and no political party will ever be able to find it without pissing off one group or another."

I think that is what governments have done with things like housing benefit and working/child tax credits.They have rcognised that you can't pay your rent and meet living costs out of low wages but know that high labour costs will send jobs abroad or crush small businesses.They have pissed people off,they've pissed off the squeezed middle who are footing the bill. All the while the rich are getting richer.

I know the housing benefit bil is too high.I have suggested more social housing.For both working poor and unemployed. And initiatives to build more homes to buy to reduce the cost of houses.We are not getting this.All we are getting is blame being put on the poor and their HB getting cut.

It strikes me that people I know in their 40s/50s/60s who had terribly difficult childhoods, e.g., dad nipping out for fags never to return, mum raising 4 kids alone and working 3 jobs - well these children are the ones who struck out in the world and really made something of themselves, they have really driven themselves with ambition.

Then there are those who get it all on a plate and just need a fucking good kick up the arse.

Tbh there's an awful lot of whining on mn, but very little "what can I do to make my life better?".

I don't understand the relevance of your post to the argument Alpine Pony. I am suggesting a way that people can get affordable rents they can pay with their own wages.That is not whining.I am also saying that people on benefit through no fault of their own deserve adequete and secure homes.That's not whining its basic humanity.

Interesting article on the way workless household figures have been interpreted in the media.
fullfact.org/factchecks/workless_household_statistics_the_mail_gets_it_wrong-1552

"In their attempt to condense yesterday?s figures into a story about soaring unemployment and mass reliance on benefits, these papers have either misused the data, or used it selectively to imply more defined and uniform tendencies than the official statistics actually show." Quoted From full fact.org.

standupandbecounted - I can see where you're coming from.

But the big question is, how do you pitch the balance? How do you provide that security, decent, standard of living to those who genuinely need welfare, while maintaining the motivation for people to get off benefits, and to strive to support themselves and their families independently?

There has got to be a financial driver to get people to do that. I know all the other arguments in favour of working - raising self esteem, being a good role model, mental stimulation, better mental health, social factors, long term security as a pensioner.....

however, those things don't replace the fact that you need an immediate financial advantage to working, as well. The fact is, working life can be stressful, demanding, and eat into time you might want to spend doing other things (as well as being fun, rewarding ...etc). I wouldn't want to not be working, HOWEVER, it has taken years of study, training, pressure, juggling 3 children, getting up at 6 am, spending a fortune on childcare, to keep me in work. Same for everyone. Working life is good - but not the 'easy' option.

That's where the problem lies. There has to be a signficant differential between working and paying all your own bills, and receiving benefits, (or indeed between being in low paid work topped up with benefits, and having a higher paid but more stressful job and having to pay totally your own way).

Otherwise why do people put themselves through the pressue of work?

If we abolished housing benefit the market value of private rents would fall. It's hb that's keeping rent and therefore property in general too expensive.

Without hb property would become more affordable. I also think that minimum wage has a lot to answer for. Companies get away with paying the absolute minimum because the govt topped millions of people up with tax credits. Remove minimum wage and working people will have to be paid more than they would get on benefits otherwise they just wouldn't work.

The previous govt subsidized companies by paying tax credits which let the companies of the hook. The large institutions got away with paying staff ridiculously low wages whilst all the profits ended up in the shareholders pockets. The money wasn't going back into the economy in an efficient way. All the money shot straight to the people who were already very wealthy.

We need wages to increase and property prices to stagnate until equilibrium is reached. That will not happen while people who work are being "kept poor" by benefits.

standup "My answer is that a lot don't."

I understand what you are saying and I do see your point. The problem is (as many, many people have said from their own experiences on here) that people who aren't getting HB are living in similar crappy housing. To them if anyone on HB is getting a better deal than them (whether it is a house with garden - unless their kids have SN obviously - or a bedroom for each child or what have you) then understandably they are pissed off at what they perceive to be a massive inequality. Those who dont get HB aren't saying that those who do should only be able to live in hovels but they do think that housing shouldnt be better than what they themselves can afford.

You are right in saying tax credits etc help with the lack of minimum wage. That's fine. The problem is, as many people have said, when those who are able to work choose not to and expect the state to pay for them.

Yes we need more social housing. However the government is broke and there is little land available for building unless we use green field sites. There is no short term fix however the issue of those few who do take the piss out of the system and live in million pound pads in Notting Hill must be fixed immediately.

Alouiseg "Remove minimum wage and working people will have to be paid more than they would get on benefits otherwise they just wouldn't work."

I agree with what you say re HB but disagree with this. As we have free movement between EU states there are always going to be people from poorer countries who are willing to do low paid jobs because it is still more than they could earn back home.

Violethill I totally agree!

Discussion has moved on a LOT..

but pastyeater, that's just what my MS friend fears (and in fact FWIW her dh left five years ago....) but she would rather convert her own house using her own money than get another house from the state, and surely that's a good aspiration? Surely that should be the default setting, and the state only steps in if she can't manage having tried? Wouldn't that also be better for her?

Agree too v. strongly with Violethill. My point exactly. Once I WAS 'the poor', and we all accept the need for a safety net, but that's not what the OP was about; it was about whether some people have abused the system, which clearly they have. So it's not like for instance the NHS or state-funded education; HB is a benefit which can breed dependency and - a point well made by alouiseg - prop up housing prices artificially thus making life very hard for everyone. I also can't help thinking that it makes the transition to managing on a budget/salary very hard for people.

Lot of sense coming through on here. One of the ridiculous inequities of the system is that some people are penalised for working. For example, if say, a single parent works more than 16 hours, ie, trying to earn a bit more tailored around school, etc., they lose all of their housing benefits or caring allowances in the case of a disabled child. I know of someone who tried to work a bit harder, netted an extra 80 a month and lost a couple of hundred. At this point the system needs to reduce the benefits by a bit less than the additional amount earnt so that there is an incentive to work harder and become self reliant. The system at present is a complete ass.

Beijing, people will of course be prepared to come from other European countries to do the lower paid jobs. They can only do them if they are available. Once there are wholesale vacancies at that level then hopefully the existing population have "moved up" into better paid employment rather than dropped into benefit dependency.

Yes, the discussion has moved on a lot. It's so dull when a few posters just start bandying about well worn phrases like 'uncaring', 'I'm alright Jack' etc, rather than responding with intelligent replies.

I haven't seen anyone on here suggest they want people on benefits living in hovels, or the welfare state to be dismantled. No one. All people are saying is: How do you make the system affordable, workable, and protected from abuse? How do you keep the safety net there for the needy, well keeping people motivated to work hard, and support the life style they want (including the number of children they choose to have) independently?

Of course, as always, if you haven't got a decent argument, its easier to resort to stupid, sensationalist Daily Mail type comments

while keeping people motivated

It's easy to say that, Riven, when you aren't the one paying for others whilst struggling for yourself! It's like rich people telling you money can't buy happiness, or pretty girls saying they wish they were plainer so people would take them seriously!