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 don't buy the Mail, but I will happily have a read of it if it's around (over the Guardian any day, and I don't even bother to pick up a red top or the Express) and whilst I honestly do agree with much of what it says, I do roll my eyes at the way they say it. The pompous, sensationalist, embittered style detracts from what are often very sensible arguments.

I think the readership leans heavily towards lower and middle middle class, very self sufficient people between 55-75. To be fair from what I've seen lately they aren't giving Dave an easy ride either - they voted for him, but they are still not happy! And they don't cut 'The Bankers' any slack either, which you might have expected from Tory voters. They are not above using 'just tax the bankers' as a magical convenient solution to everything, any more than an over-excited socialist 6th former is. They want the public sector to shrink, they know cuts need to be made, but they bleat about it when they are (unless it's to benefits for anyone who's ever likely to appear on Jeremy Kyle.) The tone is set very much by what baby-boomers and younger pensioners want to hear, which is basically that the country has gone to the dogs and we are all doomed. (they may have a point ) For a generation of people who have (overall) have had it quite cushy, and are now settling back in their houses all bought and paid for years ago, nice big final salary pensions, whole winters in Spain or France etc, they don't seem happy with very much of anything!

The only time I ever read the Mail now is when I fly BA back to the UK. It's the only paper they give out in economy unless you ask for something else (which they don't always have once they've gone through business class). At boarding school we got the Mail, the DT and the Times. I read all three. I don't know if it's because my attitudes have changed but there are so few articles I can read in the DM now without flicking the pages over in disgust and shaking my head.

Fellatio you are right. Some arguments made in the DM, IMO, are correct. I do think that immigration levels are unsustainable and I don't understand why we don't have an immigration system like Australia. I do think that the state is too large and can be too intrusive in peoples lives. I do think that we don't have a proper balance of human rights and responsibilities. I do think that cuts must be made. I do think the BBC can be very left wing. I do think that the EU is a mistake (in some areas, not others). I do think we need to get people who are able to work off benefits. I do think that a lot of balls has been said about global warming and a lot of data has been misrepresented but I also think we don't truly understand climate change. I do think that we have unsustainable levels of debt and that it's only been because we didn't join the Euro that we haven't gone the way of Greece, Ireland etc.

So it probably sounds like the DM is my natural home! It honestly isn't though!

I am suspicious of the attacks on the BBC. It was originally set up be non-biased. Considering the conversation we have just had, I think that it is vital to preserve it.

standup I certainly would never ever advocate removing the bbc. I agree it is vital, especially it's overseas arm.

I just don't think it is quite as non-biased as it used to be but perhaps that is because the country is more left wing as a whole and it reflects a majority view. I really don't know. I'm happy to accept that it may just be me being irrational.

Agree with all of that too beiijing

And I LOVE the BBC. It's not perfect, but almost.

I think most people who can work want to be off benefits; when there are less jobs than people available to fill them, and living costs aboeve minimum wage it's either accept that it cannot be done, or that the ahrdship caused will be immense.

DS3 will need lifelongc are but like many Social Services depts our SSD does not cover autism unless it also coveres severe LD: ds3 does not have severe LD but he has what is called a severeely impaired functional IQ- ie he ahs vurtually no attention span and can do very little for himself, includinga sking for help (on top of severe communication issues and the normal asd stuff). If there were noa dult with him he would simply stare at his obsessive interest not using loo or eating or dressing utnil he collpased. SSD not really interested. I have no idea what will happen when we go; his 2 older siblings ahve some SEN and ds2 has no interest uin helping him long ter; ds1 would but is abusive individual (also has ASD, at a different level). if they handed ds3 to him I think he would be severely hurt and neglected. But I woudln't be here to refuse would I?

The accom suggested by his medical support team will close after the closure of the ILF scheme.

Locally, people trying to get care placements are being told only if you are terminally ill or neglecting your child; people are losing their homes because when your child leaves education if there's no serviv=ces then aorking arond school ceases to happen: you are needed at home 24/7. 16 and 18 are the ages when being a parent and being a carer become starkly different I think.

By not being immortal, I let my ds3 down. That is stark reality.

I'm really sorry to hear your situation Santa. Most people, including myself, have no idea what your family and families in similar situations have to deal with.

In an ideal world what options would you like open to your family if you don't mind me asking? Just ignore if you do mind me asking.

are we almost having a proper debate here...sheesh.
wrt asylum etc you either do accept that it is our duty to offer a safe haven to people who are fleeing from some horific situations,or you don't. personally if the government decided to stone me to death for having had 3 kids out of wedlock then i would hope and pray somewhere would take me and my children in and help us. We have freedom to move to Poland (should we choose to) why should they not be allowed to come here, how many engineers\builders etc have gone to work abroad...many of the babyboomers will have worked overseas.
the issue here is that those that come seeking asylum are housed(which is the decent human response imo to someone in need who arrives with nothing)or put in prisons. when their claim is dealt with they are entitled to stay and receive what the law says they are entitled to.
in my very woolly,marginally left leaning liberal mind i am more offended by the twats who have all the benefits of free education, free contraception and free health care yet make no attempts to avail themselves of it and improve their lot-those that have fled across the world from horror to do the best for their family don't enormously bother me. I would do likewise if i had to.
the issues are around housing,and nobody wants to admit that selling off council houses and them never being replaced,coupled with people living longer and an increase in population\increase in divorce etc. means there are less actual homes,habitable by families so people get jealous (irrationally so) of those on benefits\seeking asylum and never look 'up the ladder' to point the finger of blame.

Yes, its fairly easy to see the arguments with asylum seekers - any civilised society should provide a safe haven for innocent people who are fleeing death or torture.

Trouble is, the situation has become so complicated, and its so hard to differentiate between 'deserving' and 'undeserving' cases. Divorce is a prime example : you cannot compare this with asylum seekers. If two people have bought or rented a home on the basis of living together as a couple, how can they possibly expect to maintain the same standard of living as two separate households? And often, people in this situation expect to go on and start another family too.

Once you have reached a situation where your average working person, who has remained with their partner and is raising the number of children they can afford to raise, is NO BETTER OFF than people who rely on others to pay for them, then it equals disaster. Which is why the welfare state is in the mess it is.

but that's the point i am making violet.
a lot of it is societal change ie people not staying in unhappy relationships so what was one family\one home is now '2 homes' with the state funding\part funding the rent, people living longer so more pensioners clogging up supermarkets the NHS and receiving winter fuel\pension\bus passes etc. plus all the illnesses that develope as we age (not saying we should stop treating OAP's btw!)immigration isnjust one thing, there are few jobs and few cheap houses... it's not just 'single mothers\benefit claimants' who are taking more from the state...they are just easy targets.
and the utter sensationalist bullshit pumped out and spun by (certain)papers doesn't help. How anyone can respect anything in the mail or express when they are still printing conversations that a 'dead for 13 years' princess allegedly had in private with one other person (also dead)as fact or news is utterly beyond me!

I think HB is important to help people out but I think it's unreasonable to expect to afford a house with a bedroom each when many children have to share across the world. A 2 bed flat is a lot better than many have and you chose to have 2 kids.

I have one child and cannot afford another yet. Therefore we will wait until we can. Both me and DH work and my whole salary pays the mortgage and notheing else and we have no money for luxuries. I visit friends in council houses who have 42" tvs, the full sky package (we have free view and not a flat screen tv) and swimming pools! For christmas, her kids are getting a Wii and a laptop.

That does make me question if the money is too high. It's not that I want people to live in poverty or to get benefits myself, but I wonder what people see as "essential" these days.

I've never in all my life seen a council house with a swimming pool

tori, unless your mate is seriously on the fiddle i think no council house,in the world,ever, has been built with a fucking pool so i am going to write your whole last post as bullshit.
see,if i worked with Toryi (and was dumb)that kind of story 'my colleagues friend has a swimming pool in her council house' would travel,and travel,and travel- until it's turned into fact...

Its as bad as the 42 inch plasma tv urban myth really..........

i am sure there are people who are on benefits who have a 42" plasma screen,whether it was a gift,a competition prize,off the back of a lorry or whatever. I am almost 100% sure that benefits do not extend to the purchase of 42" plasma tellys unless there's a fiddle going on or it's second hand (or they save a tenner a week for a year or whatever) or go to brighthouse,or borrow the money off a doorstep collectors person...

Good point violethill wrt housing. I don't think people should be penalized for divorce but yes your standard of living probably will go down if you do divorce. Ime it's been men who have had less as it seems like the childrens standard of living must remain the same but that could be because the only divorced men I know are Aussie. Different system possibly?

Public I do think we should be protecting and providing for the persecuted. Of course! My issue is that you are supposed to apply for asylum in the first eu country you enter not travel across the eu to either whatever country you think will give you the best hand out or even where other members of your family are. Yes we have the right to live in poland or where ever but there is a problem if more people come to our small, overcrowded country than go to other places. It isn't sustainable and a line must be drawn somewhere.

As I mentioned the Aussie system of immigration before I'll say why I think it's such a good idea. You have to give a police report, you have to agree not to claim benefits or Medicare for a certain number of years, you must pass an English exam, certain professions jump you to the top of the list and you have to agree to certain rights and responsibilities. Voiding these rights & responsibilities can get you sent home.

I'm getting a spouse visa at the moment and you would not be believe the amount of evidence I have to provide to show that I'm not just with DH to get to Aus!

All the last three posts make excellent points. The fact people are living so much longer is in itself a major issue as far as cost to the state goes. Homes are not being freed up so quickly to go on the market or back into the social housing system either, and personal private pensions have fallen through the floor so the burden on the state will be enormous, without a doubt.

And that's just one of the very modern scenarios we must deal with. Realistically we cannot change any of this, so we must accept that compromises must be made. I wholeheartedly agree with PH that we can no longer afford to carry the 'twats' as she calls them - they need a good shake, frankly. It won't be pretty but it is long overdue. Otherwise, how can we continue to look after the people who really need it, as opposed to those who have a sense of entitlement from the state and no notion of personal responsibility?

Sorry x-posts. When I said 'the last three posts' I was referring to PH at 15.20 onwards.

oh my god,are we all semi in agreement here then...(ps it's thesecondcoming here btw!)I mentioned the other things up there as i was trying to avoid putting tax avoiders\people exploiting the legal loopholes as we've already discussed them.
beijingaling, i am not sure if i was claiming asylum i'd have time to sort my paperwork,and it's human nature to want to be somewhere that is going to look after me and my children better iyswim rather than the first place that will have me.
I also know that asylum seekers aren't allowed to work. some immigrants are subject to controls that mean they aren't allowed to work. so they do go and get 'free money' and shelter etc.
there is more than one reason for this shitstorm, so why are this government ignoring all the other contributing factors and going for housing benefit claimants...to leave the tax avoiders and the wealthy pensioners (while attacking families and children) does somewhat look like ideological and vote protecting behaviour.
hence the issues people have with this coalition.

Who decides who really needs help and who is irresponsible and entitled? And how do you make that system workable?

If you read some MN benefit threads they seem to imply that all single mothers should have chosen their men more wisely and all unemployed people should have tried harder at school.Plus seem to assume you chose to have kids at the expense of the state when a lot have had partners and jobs when the kids came along.

PMSL at council houses with swimming pools. You have some dodgy mates.

It's like as soon as you say single mum and benefits they assume you are a Jeremy Kyle show sort. And threads about disability always involve someone saying they know someone who is disabled who work.

and certain newspapers presemt this as 'the norm' and so people feel vindicated in hating everyone on benefits\who receive dla etc. and never look to blame anyone else- i mean. why would when there's people shamelessly not working (despite jobs are like rocking horse shit at the moment to come by) it compartmentalise people and means questions aren't asked of any other section of society.

After the way this government has treated our teens, I will take the attitude that everyone has to bear the brunt of these cuts.

I know the headlines are sensationalist but it does happen and HB need to have restraints put on it. I wouldn't be complaining if I was getting all my bills paid and not going out to work tbh.

People who buy their homes have to live in houses they can afford.

People just don't get it. "I wouldn't be complaining it I was getting my bills paid and not going out to work"

People may be made homeless by this.How is that an easy life with that hanging over your head.What about some empathy, or are demons people on HB beneath that?