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?

The thing is, I've said things like myself. I was being ironic. Cleofatra isn't. Sadly.

I am more shocked by Cleofartras attitude than just about anything I've ever read on Mumsnet!

Why?

Sorry posted on wrong thread there

I find it sad that some people would begrudge a child a roof over its head no matter what the circumstances of its birth ..I get pissed off about the tax dodgers living the life of riley ..not people on HB

I get pissed off with tax dodgers AND people who cant be arsed to support the children they choose to have. Both sets of people are taking the piss. And I don't think people have said they begrudge innocent children anything- its the feckless parents who churn Children out without any care or responsibility for how they will support them. Children deserve to have parents who take responsibity for them til adulthood. And the state can never provide a real alternative to parenting.

"'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."

But it IS logical to rely on the state rather than a man who is likely to be feckless/drunk/unemployed.

Whether they 'ought' to or not - many of these women are bringing children into the world. Once these children exist their mother has a duty to provide a stable income and a secure home, and for most of these women benefits are more likely to give them these things than low paid work/renting in the private sector/relying on the fathers of their children.

It's not a great situation - it's dreadful. However, from my POV the answer isn't to reduce these women and their children to abject poverty.

The answer is to provide more low cost rented housing, better paid work and help with education so that these women have a sound financial reason to delay childbearing until they're of an age where they can provide for themselves and their families and maintain stable relationships.

Middle-class women don't put off childbearing because they're morally superior. They do it because it's financially and socially advantageous to them to complete their education and find interesting work. And it feels possible to do these things. For large numbers of poor, uneducated girls in this country they see no advantage to putting off having children, given than a good education, well paid work and buying a home of their own seems beyond the bounds of possibility for them.

Well one things certain- providing increasingly bigger housing and more money ISN'T the answer, because it doesn't encourage people to become more independent, and in fact the evidence shows that it makes it more likely that their children will be kept in this cycle of dependency too. Not to mention the fact that the country is bankrupt and cant afford it anyway!

I agree with Cleo and have argued similar.
Thing is, So much has gone wrong and the problems feed into each other.

Examples:
Sort (state) pension out (ie increase)and people wouldn't feel the need to have BTL properties as their pension, and therefore out to maximise the income it generates/value.
Take social housing into state control ie out if market influence.

Sort aspiration/education out so Cleo's scenario does not apply.

oh, wait, education is implicitly based on housing cost which= vicious circle of low aspirations and sink schools= scenario above

Ps still boggling at Xenia's "the state doesn't owe you anything" comment.

Providing incresingly bigger housing isn't the answer. But providing affordable housing so that people on low/single incomes can support themselves is. Housing that you can access without becoming pregnant or having a large family. At the moment it doesnt exist.

The feckless, idle shouldn't have got pregnant argument is extremly unfair.I had a job and was in a relationship when I got pregnant with ds2( and ds1 SAME FATHER!!!) I didn't have a chrystal ball though.I would love to know where the evidence is that most benefit claimants choose it, apart from the sun and the daily mail. Love it that my life has to be made unbearable so I can be held up as warning to the feckless.

Cleo it is everyone's interests to complete their education and look for interesting work, not just the middle classes. That is what turns someone from being underclass, through working class to middle class or whatever label you want to put on it. And besides, this is not about turning everone inot the class above, or making them rich or highly educated, it's about encouraging self-sufficiency and responsibility. There are many many couples who are neither middle class, nor highly educated, nor in 'interesting' employment. But they still take responsibility for themselves and their own family planning, and take great pride in doing so.

And there really is no reason for any woman to be totally uneducated in this country.

Her first duty to her children is not to get them cared for at the expense of the state - her first duty is to make better choices about when, and with who she procreates with in the first place. Nothing pre-ordains their chances in life more than that. Nothing.

"And there really is no reason for any woman to be totally uneducated in this country"

Really? Because our education system is so shit hot, right?

I think it's very very easy for people to be totally uneducated in this country. All you need is a class size of 34, a frazzled teacher and disinterested parents. Child just muddles along, not really knowing what is what. Or are you saying the child should know exactly what her rights are and how to get herself a good education?

Assertive, information seeking people are most educated ones who have the confidence and understanding on to improve their lives.

I do agree to a certain extent that people need to take control of their own lives and take responsibility.

It's an explanation of how that woman reacts the way she does though, and it's rational given current circs, and it's at least partly explained by poor education/sink school/ poverty of aspiration that is exacerbated by the way your access to schooling depends on your housing. It's a vicious circle

(mine's to Fellatio btw)

'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?

The conversed side being of course that if like my family a few things hit you in succession after the children are here, and you lose your self sufficient status albeit temporarily, you don;t lose everything immediately. Which in turn leads to greater chances of getting sorted I think- little things like being close enough to family to be able to find a babysitter (if you are lucky) for temp work or interviews. Knowing local people for job searches, remaining in the local systems if your troubles are disability or illness related, keeping children at same school (triply essential if you are suing an SEN system I think- as Mum to SEN and MS school attending children- where we will probably move for work in 2 yaears they don;t even have the sort of school ds1 has a palcement at).

If teh system is biased towards helping those who have paid in but find themselves in the mire that's a postive IMO- how you balance that with not encouraging benefit-breeding I am not sure but as the latter would result in potentially difficult childhoods for those whose larger famillies are accidental (into which I include contraceptive failure, multiple births) it's a difficult act to juggle.

There are of course otehr options to support alrger famillies often- either by better pursuit of non contributory absent parents, or access to childcare for carers who cannot locate any if that is the reason for their poverty. It won;t hit all but from those people I know you'd take out quite a proportion addressing those two.

Standup- quite, all mine with same father, 4 chidlren; OTE by now should be over £50k, more than sufficient in S E Wales. A redundancy and 2 dx's of ASD put paid to that. We're on our way back up ( ds4's development looking a bit shaky, but dh's business home based so allowing uis to both earn when DH is fully qualified as he will manage chidlcare around it). DH's redundancy was put down to the fact that the shift they wanted them all on was the one he ahd taken flexible working to aviod as the boys needed 2 adults then, and the fact that they plan to relocate and we cannot just drop SNUs so easily- other more flexible people got the few jobs remaining, somewhat understandably.

What worries me is that the main systems that have allowed us to minimise dependecy have also been targeted for review: DLA that emans we can afford the extras for the boys without having to claim all we are entitled to elsewhere; the Tax Credits at 16 hours that emant DH could set up the business; university palces that ahve allowed Dh to accumulate the new skills he needs in order to rpactise in his field.......

I dread to think what would happen to an equivalent family if they get this in 4 yeras and am glad DH and I will both have an icnome from 2012.

Fellatio your 'no such thing as disadvantage and poverty is your own fault' argument is wrong and unfair. In my experience it is usually held by priveledged people who try to justify why they deserve so much. I suspect you are the one that's precious and entitled.

No such thing as disadvantage? What do you do if the childcare says no to your disbaled kids, or if you are severely disabled youraself? DS3 is not disadvanatged? Am not so much as PMSL in all honesty.

That was a summary rather than a direct quote. But apparently I should have picked a bloke who wouldn't piss off and my first duty to my kids is not to rely on the state.

Basic problem in this country is that pay is too low. It's insulting low in some sectors. Why should the government have to prop up working people's wages? And professional landlordism should be against the law - it would solved an awful lot of problems.

Of course there is disadvantage and poverty, but the ones causing it is usually the children's own parents by having more than they can cope with, take the financial side away even, it's a smart woman or man that can juggle 4 children's needs as well as her own and do a good job with each individual child.
I struggle with it personally and I use a nursery three days a week and have a cleaner who cook tea.
First born's do better at school along with only children and in all honesty for those who don't have the resources to bring in support for themselves we need to discourage with financial disincentives responsibility.

Interested newbie / lurker here.

At the moment I am really struck by the utterly conditional notion of State support as evidenced here. It seems so judgemental - and setting various sections of society against each other while doing very little to admit that the State has CREATED the situation by successive governmental policies is in my opinion a cynically calculated ploy by the government (regardless of alleged political bent)to divert attention from its continuous drive to preserve the capitalist / materialistic model.

We have been told to aspire to material wealth, by working productively and also at the same time giving the government a contribution to provide public services. We have been told to sacrifice our own desires for families and until we have reached an acceptable level of wealth, but at the same time, the opportunity for everyone to achieve that wealth has been eroded by government policies.

We have been given the idea that anyone can achieve anything if only they would just try hard enough - regardless of how that may affect a family's security, structure or emotional well-being, and at the same time if that well-being falters we are blamed for it by not addressing it if we were pursuing the "ideal" of a certain standard of living.

We are supposed to be "Borg" with regard to the State, but pursue our individuality, but only if we deserve it by doing what the State tells us. We get one lot of people being smug, and another lot hopeless, then the positions can reverse quite easily when Mr Smug gets made redundant, or Ms Hopeless lands an unexpectedly good job.

You wonder why mental health issues are spiralling out of control? It's because sometimes however hard you try to "take responsibility" for your life, your future, and your children, it doesn't work out. Couple that with a bunch of people claiming it's ALL your own fault and if you don't keep flogging yourself to death to make it change even though the goal posts change on a daily basis sometimes, and you have a recipe for utter despair.

Big Society indeed - if altruism is really regarded as an indulgence as opposed to the mark of a society that truly does want to improve EVERYONE's lot, then I fear we really are heading towards total catastrophe.

I'm still waiting to hear from those who think LHA needs to be reduced where they expect those of us with no income to live?