Who really gets £500+ weekly state benefits?

[vivizone]

I find this shit so hard to believe. Reading the media, you would think this was a common figure on life on benefits.

Yesterday and today's Metro newspaper - people writing in saying they agree with the cap of £500 and why should people be sat on their arse and be rewarded by £500 per week. . Why should they earn £200 per week working and people are getting £500 a week doing nothing.

Seriously, who gets this £500 per week that is being peddled out of the media? I spent 7 months out of work after redundancy and I could not live on the pittance I received for me and my children. I do not know how people do it. I really don't. I had a decent redundancy package and that was the only way I could make it.

How many people do you know (forget the newspaper stories) that are RECEIVING £500 or more every week? I thought so.

How come if life is/was that cushy on benefits, not enough people are/were packing in their jobs to join a life of riley?

We have been had. Life on benefits is HARD and DEMORALISING. I have tried it and I can tell you you get PEANUTS.

The reason why stories run on people living in million dollar homes/getting thousands a week in benefits is because it is RARE. It is SO rare, that it gets reported on.

Oh, and their asset is not paid for by the taxpayer, especially if they aren't paying a mortgage. Some landlords own their rental properties outright.

The taxpayer is paying for the claimant to have somewhere to live. That is all.

Yeah, but at least the taxpayer used to own the property.

I'm rather shocked that 1 in 50 households has no members who have ever worked (mentioned in the Telegraph article just linked). Bar jobs, agency waitressing and temporary office jobs are not difficult to come by even with no experience or qualifications - I got by just fine on that sort of work for 4 years before I decided it was time to go to university and never had any problems getting part time work or summer jobs while I was an undergrad.

A lot of taxpayers on not very good salaries just aren't prepared to pay taxes to the state to go to housing benefit for people living in houses they could never dream of affording. And that's the bottom line. These housing benefit subsidies have pushed up rent, pushed up house prices. So I am totally in favour of capping them. The bottom line is people are fed up of paying tax on a low wage to subisidise other people getting a benefit equivalent of much more than they earn. Why can people not understand this. That's why the Tories were elected. The tax payer shouldn't be subsidising private companies so they can pay meagre wages and make huge profits.

Capping housing benefit punishes the victims. You'd be better off capping rents - if you [the govt.] were actually interested in cutting the bill as opposed to attacking the poor (working poor as well as sick and unemployed).

Why can't people understand it?

Well, because it's actually very rare that there are people on benefits living in mansions.

'Bar jobs, agency waitressing and temporary office jobs are not difficult to come by even with no experience or qualifications - I got by just fine on that sort of work for 4 years before I decided it was time to go to university and never had any problems getting part time work or summer jobs while I was an undergrad. '

When was this? Times have changed because times have changed. Hello, zero hours contracts.

Oh, so the LL was able to buy the property outright? And your LL came and fixed the boiler right away. If I had a quid for every thread on here where the LL didn't, or worse, I'd be able to buy a new fridge.

They're not providing a service! They're enriching themselves off the taxpayer.

Exactly, edam, and if you can't afford to pay your BTL mortgage with it, then you shouldn't be in business.

The taxpayer isn't here to provide assistance to the poor, but they are to provide the portfolio property of the BTL landlord and MPs.

Funny that.

It's wag the dog policy at it's finest because people are stupid enough to fall for it.

I wasn't meaning mansions I was meaning very expensive property. Some of the property in London is extortionate. The market should find it's own level and not be propped up by the tax payer. I certainly don't agree with the MP's second homes fiddles. Houses could have be built with the billions given away in housing benefits. Straight into the pockets of private landlords. How can that be right? Benefits are meant to help people out who are in need. Does that mean greedy landlords with huge portfolios raking it in. This makes me mad as you can see!

Vivienne - but the sensible answer is to tackle the landlords, and the dysfunctional housing market, not to punish tenants who just need somewhere to live.

We are already seeing a dramatic rise in the number of families in B&B in London - somewhere no child should ever be. How the hell is a parent housed in a B&B meant to feed their child healthy food, when you can't even cook and don't even have a fridge?

There's no point blaming landlords. The money paid in hb could have funded new council houses, but successive governments are overseeing a roling back of the state. This always means more money going to the private sector from the public sector. This policy is the disgrace, not the small landlord who rents out a house.

This was 2001-2006 Expat. I understand that things may have changed in the last five years, but I'm sure the majority of the households where nobody has ever worked had some people of working age during that time. I'm also pretty sure that I could go out now and have found a part time bar/restaurant job by the time the pubs shut.

Just interested to know why LL's are being portrayed as greedy villains? Seems there is a similar level of frustrated anger towards people that buy an investment property as there is towards those that are financially supported to live in them.

Housing benefit goes into the pockets of rich landlords. Tax credits subsidises companies like Tesco's and Sainsburys. The Tories are cutting both these subsidies. Those people who do not think these should be cut/capped (and housing benefit is still being capped at a very generous £400 per week/£20,800 a year - the equivalent of a £30k salary), what amount do they think benefits should be capped at? £50,000, £100,000, £1 million? Seriously do you think the sky should be the limit where benefits are concerned and rich landlords and Tesco's should be made richer and richer through never ending subsidies?

I agree with Orwellian. Stop the subsidies. The buy to let landlords will not be making enough money to cover their mortgage and will sell. prices will come down. People will actually be able to afford to buy houses to live in eventually. Tesco's will have to provide transport or rent subsidies themselves to make sure they have the people to work in their little bijoux shops in Kensington.

House prices are way to high. I know many people, my family included, earning what should be decent salaries. We cannot afford to buy. This is partly because of high prices and partly because we are unable to save the deposit due to having to pay ridiculous rent. The government needs to stop propping up house prices. They need to fall to affordable levels for families earning average salaries. I also think that people with multiple properties should be taxed in the same way that income and savings are taxed. They are an asset and in many cases people have done very well from property from buying at the 'right' time. Of course this will never happen though, as our politicians and their rich friends are the key beneficiaries of this scam. This is why they do not want a mansion tax or higher council tax bands. It is easier for them to keep taxing income, despite the fact that many tax payers are not lucky enough to have assets of their own if they were not in a position to buy a house 10 years ago.

Carers Allowance isn't deemed enough for an adult to live on. £55 a week.
Hence why we need an income support top up.

Queen Stromba, Excluding student households, where everyone is aged 16 to 24 and in full-time education, there were 265,000 households containing only people that have never worked. This represents 1.3 per cent of all households in the UK.

1 in 50 is 2%. 1.3% is probably too many, of course, but it's one in 77.

Obviously some of those would be a divorced or widowed SAHP. Others would be severely disabled couples; some might be care homes.

Cba to go through the source data, but I really think those who make capital out of them should.

freddos people who support the reforms are saying that it is an acceptable sacrifice; its ok that's masses of peiple (elderly, sick, young, you know-the most vulnerable) will not have enough money for shelter, warmth and food as long as we are preventing a minority of claimants from abusing the system. It's rancid.

stromba were you young, single, fit and well educated?
It is much easier to get a job if you are already in work.
What's the ratio of unemployment to jobs available? I think there are 5 times mote people than vacancies? That's not considering locations, suitability etc etc. Of course its easier for graduates to get jobs

Where did you get that from Garlic? I was quoting from the Telegraph article which someone linked to on the last page. Most people I know with a degree had done some sort of job by the age of 18/19 so I can't see how excluding student households would make that much difference.

Obviously some of these households will consist of people who never had to work because they were being supported by family and people who are unable to work because of disability but that won't be the case for most of them I'm sure. I'm sure most people on DLA now were healthy and working at some point in their lives and most SAHPs had a job at some point before they were a parent.

I got it from the Mail, Stromba. They were all reporting on the same data

Here's that data. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/working-and-workless-households/2012/stb-working-and-workless-households-2012.html

Do you want a laugh? Heard something today that made me want to scream and shout, but thankfully I didnt shoot the messenger!

DH lost his job on Tuesday when the company "folded", actually it didnt, its all a bit dodgy but perfectly legal. It means that he and his co-workers have to claim their redundancy, back pay and notice pay etc from the National Insurance pot. My mother was talking to a friend of hers at church today about it, and the friend (who is lovely but quite quiet normally) was very sympathetic and knows someone else who had to do that, she said it was a fairly quick and simple process. Another church member, known for her "views" caught the tail end of the conversation and butted in saying it was disgusting that people capable of working were claiming "our" money from "our" pension pot. After all it wasnt "our" fault that these people had lost their jobs was it?

As I said, I didnt go postal and blame the messenger, which is good because the next thing mum said was "Well X (her friend) said "Dont include me and Bogeysmum in that! It;s not "our" pension pot you know!! I am glad that there is somewhere that means they can pay their bills and feed their kids for a while atleast! I am sure you wouldnt want them claiming benefits either! Perhaps if you didnt go on one of your posh cruises YOU could pay Bogeys husbands redundancy!" " She was FUMING according to mum, and the other woman back pedalled like a woman possessed when she realised that it was me, who she has known since I was a child, and my husband and not some random "scrounger"!

Sorry, that wasnt clear. Mum and her friend are both pensioners but were disagreeing that the NI pot is purely for their pensions as they understand the world a little better than the other woman!