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.

takataka - my DP has just pointed out to me that I've probably always found it easy to find bar jobs because I'm relatively attractive and quite personable. The first bar job I got was when I was on the way home from the job centre with my then boyfriend and we stopped at a pub on the way home for half a lager and a game of pool. I got chatting to the barman and mentioned we'd just come from the job centre and he offered me a job because I was friendly and he knew the regulars would like me.

I did have to go through lots of temp jobs etc because I found it hard to get a permanent job because I didn't have a degree so I know how hard it is. That made me decide to get a degree and I did that with no financial help from my family - just student loans, part time jobs and summer jobs. I'm sure that if I hadn't made that decision I'd have gotten permanent job in a company I liked eventually. I was offered a couple off permanent jobs from temp jobs that I turned down because the company had treated me badly and I had a couple more nice companies tell me that they wished they could keep me permanently (I was just there covering holidays, sickness etc).

I find some of these posts shocking.

It's full of assumptions that all landlords are rich, bought to let, are greedy, are making a profit out of the taxpayer, and even wishes that they are forced to sell and have their investment, if thats what it was, fail.

The socialists spend so much time on these threads trying to dispel myths that benefit claimants are all lazy scroungers, but they do exactly the same to other, just a nice, just as honest people.

Plenty of LLs did not buy to let, plenty don't even accept HB to be able to take taxpayers money. Many of them are accidental LLs who are renting out a property they inherited, or they are a couple who used to have two homes but now share one. Yet they get painted as greedy while tenants are called 'victims' who are being punished!

Why should anyone be punished? Why should someone who is just trying to provide themselves an income and provide for their families future be punished?

'takataka - my DP has just pointed out to me that I've probably always found it easy to find bar jobs because I'm relatively attractive and quite personable.'

Here, have a .

That's it there, the whole world is just uglier than you.

'Why should anyone be punished? Why should someone who is just trying to provide themselves an income and provide for their families future be punished?'

Why should someone who's a working poor be punished, either, with homelessness, not just loss of a second home/property? They're doing the same thing, working to provide for their family, without the accident of having a secondary property.

Why is okay for one but not the other?

I don't think it is ok for the other. Its awful how little people in fill time work can have to live on. I don't think anyone is being punished by a cap on housing benefits if that's what we are talking about now though.

There isn't any punishment going on anywhere, but there would be if you forcibly created a situation where lots of people lost their property.

The worst that will happen if people can't afford their rent is that they will have to move to somewhere cheaper. I don't see that as punishment, I see that as life. People have to live to their means. That includes people living on nothing but benefits, landlords, working people, everyone.

I think the problem with the LL/tenant arguments is that there are some right bastard LL's out there who have taken advantage of the market and have scooped up the cheaper properties for buy to let and are shit LL's. They dont care about their tenants, just about protecting their investments.

Then at the other end of the scale are the accidental LL's who are renting out an inherited or otherwise owned property that they would love to sell but cant, and need to rent out in order to cover costs or mortgage etc. Somewhere in between are good and legitimate LL's who run their business well and are take their responsibilities as LL's seriously.

As with benefit claimants, each one is different and does it for different reasons and you cant tar the whole lot on the actions of one small group.

So tax payers have to ensure that none of those buy to let landlords lose out so they must continue to prop up rent prices and house prices with massive subsidies. Sorry don't sympathise at all.

'The worst that will happen if people can't afford their rent is that they will have to move to somewhere cheaper. I don't see that as punishment, I see that as life. People have to live to their means. That includes people living on nothing but benefits, landlords, working people, everyone.'

Person who is renting out the second/third/whatever property loses it, they still have a place to live.

Person who was renting that place and has no other place to go is, well, homeless.

Is that so hard to understand?

'Move somewhere cheaper'. So then that means you have to give up your MW or just above job, IF you can afford moving costs because you don't have anything to save on such wages when you're paying rent.

So simples.

Just add. They would love to sell but can't. They could sell but won't lower their price. So prices stay high and has a knock on effect.

Outraged, I don't blame the landlords. I blame successive governments for taking a basic need, i.e. shelter and turning it into an 'investment' opportunity through reckless and irresponsible lending by the banks, which was fully endorsed by our governments. Those of us who did not borrow irresponsibly are now stuck with paying our landlord's mortgage, because we didn't believe that borrowing 6 times your income was a financially astute move. However, clearly it was, as those very people are sitting pretty now with 0% interest rates and able to command high rents for their "efforts". Meanwhile, the rest of us 'renters' are priced out of the market for the foreseeable future. Also, I am not a socialist, although, this government are doing a good job of potentially turning me into one.

Outraged "they will have to move somewhere cheaper"

Ok, I see your point but, what would you have us do?

DH lost his job this week through no fault of his as the company folded. We have a mortgage and live in an area where prices are dropping week in and week out. We are still (just) in positive equity, but not by much. He hasnt been out of work in over 30 years.

How would we move to a cheaper area? Short of waiting for repossession, what would we do? A repossession that would mean we would still probably owe the bank as our home would be bought at auction by a......buy to let investor at a knock down price! We would then move to a cheaper area presumably (although our area is pretty bloody cheap already, so not sure where we would go) and Housing Benefit would line the pockets of the same sort of person who had just bought our old home! The area we moved to would be cheaper because there are no jobs, so we would still be claiming HB JSA etc etc Because we would never be able to get back onto the housing ladder, we would be living in these sort of homes for the rest of our lives.

How is that a good outcome for anyone? So "just move somewhere cheaper, thats life" isnt actually always the best outcome for either the government, the worker or the housing market.

Vivien thats a fair point, you are absolutely right, although if the property is mortgaged and is in negative equity then they may not be able to afford to sell as they would still have to find a massive amount to clear the debt. Not defending, just saying that nothing is as clear as it seems.

There are some right bastard landlords out there, I agree. But then there are some right bastard tenants too. The ones that don't pay their rent and cost people a fortune in eviction fees, or who trash the properties leaving damage and a lot of expense.

It works both ways.

Viviennemary, taxpayers are not ensuring that BTL landlords lose out. Taxpayers are paying to keep someone housed. If people didn't claim housing benefits, the taxpayers won't have to pay for them. Aside from that fact, most BTL landlords don't accept housing benefit from their tenants because as a whole, housing benefit claimants have shown themselves to be a high risk group of people to let to. Mortgage companies stipulate that their customers must not rent their properties to housing benefit claimants, so effectively, they cannot take taxpayers money.

Vivienne, Completely agree with you.

Bogey, in that situation you would be able to claim housing benefit to pay the interest on your mortgage for up to a year. As far as I know anyway, a family member had to to that until recently, when after 7 months he got another job.

Or I would expect you to have mortgage insurance in place which would let you get by for a while. Hopefully these things would give you enough time to find another job for either one of you.

I'm actually really upset by that Expat. My DP actually said that I got bar jobs because I'm pretty, have great boobs and am really good with people. I toned that down because repeating what he said would sound like bragging and actually I don't think I'm that pretty, I've got a terrible figure other than my boobs and I always think that people don't actually like me and actually I find social situations very difficult a lot of the time.

So have your back.

QueenStromba, I knew what you meant.

People will have more chance of finding work if they are attractive, friendly and have good skills with people than if they don't. Sometimes people don't like to see that though, it's easier to have a go at you for bragging

I have got a thing about house prices. I know young people on quite good wages and they just simply can't afford to buy a house. They can't afford the deposit or the mortgage so they are stuck renting. My opinion is house prices are far far too high in many parts of the country and are just not in line with wages. Or young people say in their early twenties that would love to leave home and rent but they can't really afford the rents and have a reasonable amount left to live on.

Outraged yes but at current interest rates that would be about £5 per week, we would still have to find the money to pay the rest. So how would that work?

We are lucky in that we will be able to afford our mortgage as long as one of us gets a job in the next 12 months. But not everyone is that lucky. I am just trying to point out that "just move" isnt always that simple, or a good outcome for either the government or the family concerned.

Queen if I was you I would be more pissed off that your DP clearly equates your ability to get a job with the size of your tits! Your attitude, if you are friendly and approachable, will be what got you the job and yes, that is attractive.

Your DP however, sounds like an arse.

I agree with you on that Vivienne. It wasn't that long ago that a family could afford to have one worker in a low skill job, have one person at home full time looking after children, and still be able to pay a mortgage.

I'd like to go back to that too, but it's not going to happen. And if it did, screwing over homeowners is not the way to go about it.

Well that's exactly it isn't it Bogey? You can afford your housing as long as you find work.

There's nothing wrong with that. If after a year, you couldn't find work and had to move, I agree it wouldn't be a great outcome. But the taxpayer can't afford to ensure that everyone has the best outcome possible. It just can't. As long as the consequences aren't dire, then the taxpayer has fulfilled it's duty.

Just looked at your profile QueenStromba and can confirm that you are utterly stunning with gorgeous colouring

So, how do we get back to sensible house prices, as the country clearly can't go on like this? The economy is completely knackered. Mortgages and rents are so high that people have very little disposable income. The time has to come surely when things will have to change.

I disagree. The taxpayer cant afford to NOT make sure everyone has the best outcome possible.

By shipping out the poor (both in and out of work) those people are condemned to a life of no jobs and no income, so costing the taxpayer. By addressing the housing issue, those people can stay in higher employment areas, get a job and pay in instead of taking out.

Its a typical tory short term solution to a long term problem. And it will come back round again and again until a long term solution is sought.