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?

'People can move to areas where rents are cheaper though and houses are cheaper.'

That is usually because there are fewer employment possibilities, though, Xenia.

Agree with you Xenia, but just thought I'd point out gently (before someone else does, less gently ) that not all poor people are idle. I know you didn't mean that, but that is how it read.

We rent because we truly cannot afford to buy.

C'est la vie.

But yes, there are many working poor, Xenia, who'd have to give up the job to move to that cheaper area, with a high possibility of not securing new employment, and then become the dreaded dole scrounger on HB.

yes bonkers renting can be more expensive than buying but if you are trying to start again mid forties with a less than spotless credit record then it's not always possible to buy.

We don't have bad credit, but cannot save the 20% deposit or fees for, well, anything.

Having been on and off the property ladder and possibly made some bad decisions but come from a very risk averse background. Im fairly philosophical about renting and am grateful to have a roof over my head.

If you meet someone in your twenties and are able to save for a deposit to get on ladder and then stay with each other for life then great but not everyone's life pans out that way.

The government is just trying to give us all a reason to think their cuts are selfishly benefitting the individual in the big society. Its very much a divide and rule tactic. Of course they'll find an anecdotal case to support their socially spurious argument. You don't get HB so why should you pay for someone else to live in a nicer house. You didn't go to uni so why should you pay for someone else to go. Etc. Etc. So much for the big society and no mention of the regime that initiated the sale of coucil houses. I'm not quite sure they've calculated the bill for all the B&B accommodation when folk get turfed out of their rental houses. Ultimately the benefactors of higher rents and higher house prices are mortgage lenders and they right royally messed up. If a critical mass of people didn't pay their mortgage - would the system be able to cope with the repossession effort? Just an idea

Part of the problem with a lack of low cost and social housing is the way that the family dynamic has changed over the last 50 years. As we know it is not at all uncommon for women to go ahead and have a child or several children, and live without a man. So in just about every scenario apart from where the man is still living with parents, that's two residences instead of one being occupied by the parents of that child. And if a woman has children by three different men (certainly not rare) and each of those three men is in housing paid for wholly or partially by the state, that's 4 properties, to house the parents of those children! Plus, the divorce rate has gone up massively, and people then start new family units with new partners, meaning that the state has to house two families instead of one. Years ago, they may not have liked one another much, but they would have been stuck together because financially there was just no other choice.

Also, as recently as the 50's and 60's it was not uncommon for young couples to live with one set of parents until they were able to afford a place of their own, or to lodge with another family by taking one or two rooms, or rent a bedsit above a shop or something. This is deeply unfashionable now, for all but students/singles. In previous generations people stayed at home until they got mnarried. We have become quite spoilt in our expectations of how much space we need to bring up a small family, and of being entitled to a place of our own rather than house-sharing. People in other parts of Europe such as Greece, Malta, Portugal or the poorer parts of Italy must think we are a bunch of precious nutters.

'People in other parts of Europe such as Greece, '

I'm sure they're so happy with their role of 'you're poor, therefore you deserve to live in shit housing' that they are currently rioting in the streets. Somehow, I doubt they think we're 'precious nutters'.

Yes, very true Fellatio.

It's a tricky one, because people will immediately turn around and shout " but how awful for people to stay together in miserable marriages!"

But at the end of the day, if people set up home together on the basis of two incomes, or one person supporting the other, then how on earth can they realistically expect to then move to running two separate households (with only the same earning power between them still) and even to start a new family?

I also think where things have gone badly wrong is the idea that it's ok to shrug off financial responsibility for your children if you divorce. If a couple split, then they are splitting from eachother, not divorcing their children. So why do some fathers think they can bugger off, leaving 'the state' (ie other parents) to fund their children for them?

The country has been living beyond its means for years, and needs to get back to the concept of people living within their means. There was an interesting thread in chat the other day, asking whether people wished they'd had more children, and why they stopped at the number they did. Loads of people responded that limiting their family to what they could afford was an important factor. It's what responsible people do. If you can only afford two children, just have two. If you can only afford 3, just have 3. Yes, I know accidents (and multiple births) can happen, but less so in this age than ever before. And it really doesn't kill anyone to have to do that. I quite fancied 4 children, but stopped at 3 mainly because of childcare and housing costs and guess what, I am perfectly content, it's no big deal.
I agree that some people have got used to just expecting to get what they want, regardless of affordability

The bit I don't get is why more people don't get themselves a bit more financially stable before starting a family. The whole purpose of the pill was to prevent unwanted pregnancies and help people to plan.

"People can move to areas where rents are cheaper though and houses are cheaper".

What, take their children out of school and move miles and miles away from their friends and families?

"but the poor have this total insulation from all these realities"

Odd really that they tend to suffer from disproportionately high rates of physical and mental ill-health, family breakdown, alcoholism and drug abuse, homelessness and educational failure compared to the 'squeezed middle', who somehow manage to be healthier, happier and more successful, despite being under such dreadful financial pressure.

"why more people don't get themselves a bit more financially stable before starting a family"

Because for a good proportion of uneducated people in this country, starting a family is the only way to achieve financial stability and get a roof over their heads!

Uneducated women from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular who feel they have no chance of getting a job that pays a proper living wage and allows them to cover their housing costs /save, are doing the logical thing relying on the state to support their children and put a roof over their heads. Who else is going to do this for them? The fathers of their babies?

Cleofartra - well I think they and the fathers of their babies should have to take a great deal more responsibility to provide for their children who happen to be their repsonsibility both financially and socially. Starting a family is not the only way the uneducated can achieve. They start to achieve by ensuring they become better educated and becoming personally responsible for their actions and accepting the consequences of them. Your argument is precisely why they should not have such good housing as hard working self reliant families. A degree of hardship might make them take greater responsibility to avoid having it so tough.

Having babies and living off the state is not achieving.

"We have a duty to ensure people don't go hungry and are fed in my view and I am sure most people in the UK support that but that does not have to be in the form it is currently done"

So in what form would you suggest?

"I thiA degree of hardship might make them take greater responsibility to avoid having it so tough".

Absolutely. What do you suggest? Housing that is damp? All of them living in one room? No running water? Sharing a kitchen and a bathroom with another family? Teenage children of different sexes having to share rooms/beds?

It's not right for children to be bought up in over-crowded, unsanitary or unsafe homes if it can be avoided - they did nothing to chose the families they were born into. It damages their chance of achieving educationally and it damages their long term health and emotional wellbeing.

The sad thing is that you can have people in this country who may be working very hard - and if they are in London or the SE they still won't be able to afford anything other than ADEQUATE housing. I don't think that benefit claimants should be herded into substandard/unsafe/overcrowded accommodation just so the state can say that they're not advantaging them over the working poor.

"Having babies and living off the state is not achieving".

I'm qualified to postgraduate level, have an enjoyable, challenging job and have travelled the world. I still feel that having babies and looking after my children has been the most interesting, exciting and emotionally rewarding experience of my life. If you were to ask me whether I'd rather spend the best years of my life working 40 hours a week behind a counter in Greggs for a poverty wage, or being at home with a beloved child, supported by the state, I know what I'd rather do. Of course you could always sacrifice your chance to do what you feel will bring you personal happiness and fulfilment for the sake of your country. I mean, middle-class people do this all the time don't they? (not)

LFN - we also have a duty to house people - housing is as much an essential as food is for basic survival. Esp this winter.

I'd be interested to hear some suggestions as to how this problem is addressed then - of people living off the state because its preferable to education, working and financial independence. Practical, affordable suggestions, I mean. Not just pie in the sky ones.

Lived in a bedsit for 6 years until I could afford the next rung up, a one bedroom flat.
I worked some shitty hours doped up on 'pro-plus' had no social life and probably effected my health.
What I should have done is said 'woe is me there are no jobs, everywhere is too expensive, I need to get up the duff and then I can get a house without worrying about trivial things like having to pay my own way.'

And before people take offence...
Of course I understand that people live in difficult circumstances through absolutely no fault of there own. I am not having a go at individuals, just a system that encourages this mentality.

I hate the way the media portray large families. I came from a large family and it really makes me feel uneasy and very sad. I also hate the way that socially people just love to judge large families.

OP YANBU

I am in Cambridge, where LHA rates will drop by an estimated £23 per week on rates that are already well below what renting here actually costs.

I am not on unemployment benefits, and am really fucking sick of being demonised for claiming LHA (lone parent = one income) thanks to these Daily Mail-esque stories.

I don't agree with the family with eight kids getting a 10k/month mansion etc, of course I don't, but what is being portrayed in the press is really not representative of the average LHA claimant (given that an est 80% of LHA claimants do not receive unemployment benefits).

LHA does not = benefit scrounging, work dodging scummers popping out children willy nilly and living in mansions

I've never rented in the UK but I'm a bit regarding the comments I've seen and "greedy" landlords.

I agree with those who say that rents are high/unaffordable because of LHA. With a lower level of LHA surely the prices would have to come down which would benefit everybody? Or is that just naive of me to think so?

I suppose this isn't really the point but why shouldn't landlords charge the going rate for a home they wish to rent out? If you were going to sell your car would you really say "nah, it's alright dear I'll knock off 1000 quid because that's all you can afford." Of course not. You would say, "Well, I'm afraid this is what the car is worth in today's market and you're just going to have to find something smaller/less desirable."

There isn't an easy answer but the current system simply is not sustainable. Yes there are people who take the piss out of the system and there are people who don't. There are also many people (most, I would assume) who will say "well, that's what we are entitled to so why shouldn't I have it." Fair enough.

I back the coalition on this and I back the proposed change of plans that will mean that council housing should be based on circumstances (not the current system where you can get a house for life even if your circumstances change for the better). Of course, it is very easy for me to back the changes when I'm not affected by them.

NB... I am taxed in the UK still so please don't write me off just because I live overseas!

snowyweather I don't think anyone judges large families, just irresponsible ones. That applies whether you have 3 children or 13. It's called living withiin your means. If you are prepared to live pretty frugally and simply, with just your eight children to keep you warm, then lovely - go ahead and have them. Just don't complain if things are really quite tough. What else could you possibly have expected? (unless you are Xenia, but frankly who is? )

I know several really quite affluent large families and whilst to the outside world they might look rich, I can tell you they live relatively frugally compared to their friends because they have to. Yes, they can afford the luxury of choice, but there are still sacrifices to be made - there always is.

If you know damn well you cannot manage to house, feed or clothe 6 children without hanind responsibility for all but child benefit over to the state, but you go ahead and have them anyway, then you have been foolish and greedy IMO.

The bizarre thing is that for self-sufficient families having lots of children is financially crippling and just not feasible, whereas for benefit dependent families having lots of children is really quite a good idea and can be quite lucrative. That can't be right, can it?

Cleofatra 'Unemployed disadvantaged women do the logical thing by relying on the state to provide for their children - who else is going to do it? The Father? '

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.

Agree fellatio. Therein lies the problem- that some people really don't seem to get the idea that parents should be responsible for their own children!