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?

They'll be back :(

They are all out buying free range turkeys from Waitrose

Regarding inheritance, what is the incentive to work, speculate and save if you cannot leave your wealth to your children?

ROFL

You'll have your house Riven! Won't you want that divided amongst your children?

I expect we'll all be selling our homes to fund our own care tbh

So, theoretically you are leaving your child your property.

I wouldn't sniff at 150k.

It's a lot more than most people have as an asset.

Lets hope inheritance tax doesn't rise too much then, or leaving your wealth to your children be made verboten.

Which some people would like to happen under a socialist idyll.

verboten das incomecharger! Ya!

Why are people so afraid of people finding out that their ability isn't genetic?? Surely if all those people on high incomes were as good as they thought they were, they would welcome your 'socialist idyll' .. or perhaps you are admitting that so called 'ability' is a reflection only of priviledge only??

I know parents whose disabled daughter (age 35) lives in a small residential community. The parents have always organised their finances so that the daughter never ever receives any money from anyone in the family or else where for any reason at all, because she/they would then be charged that exact amount for the care she receives. The parents are not leaving her any money in their will for the same reason. They are leaving extra money to the other siblings and planning how the other sibs will share 'responsibility', after they die.

So I am confused now, but I am confused a lot.

? I'm saying that I want my children to benefit from anything that dh and I have accumulated through our life.

What is wrong with that?

I don't think its your 'wants' that are not understandable, its that if people are able to pass everything on without restriction, it rapidly accelerates inequity and that is bad for the country (increased crime, reduced productivity, decreased security, famine, disease, war cf rwanda, zimbabwe, haiti, yadda yadda)

If yu want your house to be worth more oppose social housing, restrict house building on greenfield sites, block high density housing on brownfield sites, encourage divorce, encourage young people to move out of the family home early, advocate massive lending by banks, encourage dual incomes...encourage later families.

So why complain that its 'only' worth 150k then?

Really don't understand the argument here.

(Thanks for the reply. I am less confused now).

Well, I don't think you'll find everyone agreeing that 150k is peanuts.