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.

Thanks Outraged. Bogeyface, my DP is not an arse - he just pointed out that he wouldn't find it as easy to get a bar job as me because he's rather shy and unkept looking and because men do respond well to nice boobs. He's actually supporting me at the moment because my PhD funding has run out and knows that when I get an academic job afterwards it will probably have nothing to do with my boobs but my personality will probably help.

No outraged, the worst that will happen if people can't afford their rent is that they will become homeless....then depending on their tenacity and circumstances; live on the street or, oh look....be housed by LAs..families in B&Bs etc etc

The Tories make me laff..its quite a common slur on the lefties, that they are idealists. When infacr, it is them living in cloud cuckoo land. There are feckless people in our society, there always has been and there always will be. They are not suddenly going to grow fecks over night because their benefits have been reduced/removed. It's called 'social security' for a reason

"They are not suddenly going to grow fecks over night"

That's what I was saying. Pay the the facially tattooted and disenfranchised their basic living. The ones I know don't have huge expectations or aspirations towards plasma goats, they just want to be mostly warm and fed and human nature being what it is, they will do whatever they can, whatever they know, to get that. And it won't be by way of a zero-hours contract.

It won't be Cameron and his ilk who will suffer, it'll be everyone on this thread.

I still stand by my original statement for able bodied/not disabled or special needs lone parents and children (obviously there are different factors that come into play if the children or parents are disabled/special needs) . I don't believe the state should indefinitely pay for single parents to stay at home or top up part time wages, no. I'm not highly educated, earn well below the average wage and used to catch a bus and then a train to work every day while DS was a baby. Lone parents should be provided with help towards childcare yes, but they shouldn't be subsidised to stay at home when they could be working full time (unless for whatever reason they can afford not to work/work part time without reliance on the state).

But Lucie, you are assuming many things in your post.

You are assuming that someone lives in an area of good public transport links. You are assuming good childcare within a distance that allows for the parent to drop off and get to work by 9am. You are assuming that there are jobs for these people that dont require flexible working, as most nurseries want set sessions and dont allow for flexible hours.

It does depend alot on where a person lives. Where I live there is good transport but all of the nurseries bar 2 are out of town, and the 2 that are in town have waiting lists that you sign up for when you are thinking about maybe discussing TTC in order to get a place! The rest are in the outlying areas that would mean 2 or 3 more bus journeys to get to in a morning and in the evening. We are in a reasonably high employment area but thats in manufacturing and warehouse work. There are not many admin or skilled jobs and of the temp jobs, most of the contracts are short term contracts that dont lead to FT employment as temps are cheaper and easier to get rid of.

While in theory you are right, it depends where you live and what you do.

I think lucies point though is that all things being equal there are some people who would get up at 6 am, use subsidised childcare and catch that train to work. And others who would complain that it's too early/too hard/they don't want to leave their child until they are 5/8/going to secondary school etc

People don't have equal motivation to work. That's the reality. People vary in their sense of entitlement. So even if you equalise all the factors mentioned above- childcare, transport links - you will get some people who won't put in the required effort which can only come from themself- getting up early, looking presentable, using the childcare provided

I still think the bottom line is the lack of equity.
Of course it's much simpler (and intellectually lazier) to make out that this country is divided into 2 simple black and white camps- those who don't give a damn about those receiving benefits, and those who are totally 100% caring people. I don't believe it's like that at all. I think the vast majority want a welfare system but they want one which is a) fair and b) affordable.

If we are saying that people in receipt of HB should not have to move to a different area if they can no longer to afford the location they live in, because they need their social network, then why do people who pay their rent solely from their own earnings have to just move off if they cant afford it?

And into recently, a lone parent didnt even have to look for a job until their youngest child was 11- whereas many couples are both having to be back in work when the child is 6 months.

And we've already seem numerous examples from people whove discovered they are no better, or virtually no better off, if they take on a harder job or work more hours.

How can any of the above be right or fair?

I am all for a robust welfare system- absolutely, but is it really beyond the wit of man to rebuild one which actually incentivises healthy capable people to be financially independent?

If people can't afford rent or their mortgage then they have to move. The state just doesn't step in and pay it. So really these subsidies should be open to all or none. The option to move to innner London in search of work should be open to all unemployed people and they should be entitiled to be subisidised to do this. But of course the option isn't open to all. And that's where the unfairness is. Many areas of the country are full of people in shockingly poorly paid jobs, in poor accommodation. And many others can't get jobs because there is a lot of unemployment in their area.

Outraged - I am far from being a socialist but I think landlords rightly get a rough ride. As a tenant of many years, I have had numerous different landlords and they have all been bloody awful in one way or another.

Landlords are not offering a public service. I doubt that many people want to be tenants. Landlords remove a home from the pool so that they can rent it and make a profit. Not only does this a) remove a home from a household who would like to buy it to live in as their own home it also b) increases housing costs for first time buyers because landlords have bought up so many properties, reducing and hiking the price of the few houses left.

Tenants are not only paying off their landlords mortgages but they are also paying for their pensions, when most tenants cannot afford either. It is understandable that many tenants feel angry about this. The tenants are doing the landlords a favour by paying off their mortgages or giving them unearned income not the other way around. It is the tenants who are at present offering a social service by paying the pensions of the older generation. This is the reason why society is so messed up, because nobody has a work ethic anymore thanks to the BTL brigade who made a killing just by being lucky being born at the right time and buying a house at the right time. Easy, unearned income. And unfortunately for every "good" landlord (i.e. pays his tax, complies with his legal duties as a landlord) there are several Rachmans (letting agents as well). I have no sympathy for them at all and the system is in dire need of reform!

I only wish the tenants were paying off my mortgage, I pay £200 a month for the pleasure of having somebody live in my house.

I really don't get this hatred against Landlords. Anyone who sells/offers a product is allowed to set their price aren't they? If the price is too high they will be stuck with it. It's called a market where the price is set by demand.
What's so wrong with someone making a profit?
What tenants often forget is that there's an awful lot of hidden costs involved in owning a property and renting it out.
Any repairs/upkeep have to be paid for by the landlords,there's a risk of the property being damaged/rent not being paid and/or being unable to let it out.
There's insurance premiums to be paid etc.

But as long as rents are subsidised by large amounts by the state then property won't find its own level. Cap the housing benefits. I've looked up London prices. I found one place to rent at £10,000 a week in London. It was very big. But still.

'What tenants often forget is that there's an awful lot of hidden costs involved in owning a property and renting it out.
Any repairs/upkeep have to be paid for by the landlords,there's a risk of the property being damaged/rent not being paid and/or being unable to let it out.
There's insurance premiums to be paid etc.'

So? Plenty of tenants realise this. It's not their problem and plenty of times, these costs are passed on to the tenant via their rent.

If it's so expensive to the landlord, why do it? Sell up. Oh, that's right, they don't want to because they might lose money.

The tenants are doing the landlords a favour by paying off their mortgages or giving them unearned income not the other way around. It is the tenants who are at present offering a social service by paying the pensions of the older generation.

Are you actually serious here?

Neither landlords or tenants are doing anyone a favour. It is a transaction between people for mutual benefit. I can't believe you actually wrote that tenants are doing landlords a favour! It's laughable! They are paying money so they have somewhere to live, or they are claiming taxpayer money so that other people can pay for them to have somewhere to live. No one is forcing them into it.

Then you go on to say that tenants are actually offering a social service! I don't even know where to begin in pointin out how ludicrous that is, but it might be worth reminding you that landlords have to pay tax on the income they receive, and they pay tax on the things they have to pay for to keep their property liveable for their tenants.

If landlords are guilty of taking homes out of the market for other people, then so is every family with children and separated parents. Ridiculous, no?

Many tenants are being forced into renting though, especially when all the first time buyer properties are being snapped up by the buy to let brigade, thus forcing out the would be first time buyers. I would much rather buy than rent, but all the slightly affordable houses in my area are sold to buy to letters and I know this because a 'To Let' sign appears outside a couple of months later.

Landlords are definitely not doing it for the good of the community. They are doing it to make money, both through rent and as an investment in their 'pension'. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people refer to their houses as their pension. In the meantime, the renters can't afford to pay for their own pensions either.

I will vote for the government that sorts this ridiculous situation out ASAP. Also, capital gains tax needs to be at 40%. Why should people be taxed at a lower level than people are taxed on income? After all, actually working for a living is productive to the economy and in my opinion should be taxed less than some parasite getting rich doing nothing.

i know probasbly most of it goes on housing benefit etc but i,m on a pretty good wage and to listen to some on here they think 30,000 /year is a marvellous wage well it would be if i got it all in my hand but sadley most of it goes on bills same as i guess people on 500/week benefits they probably dont actually see most of it

I'm well aware that landlords aren't being landlords for the good of the community. They are doing what the majority of people should be doing and trying to provide themselves with some financial security. But they are taking a risk by doing that, which may or may it pay off.

While LLs aren't doing it for the good of the community, nor are renters, which is what another poster pretty much said.

If landlords are hoping their properties will turn into their pension, then good luck to them. I don't see why they shouldn't do that, they aren't going to get much, if anything from the government when the time comes. Yet others who claim HB and other benefits will get what they need.

There are good and bad landlords, and good and bad tenants

To damn one group and hold up the other as saints is just nonsense and detracts from the real issues here

I disagree that the landlord holds the greater power.

They don't have any power when it comes to tenants that have been asked to leave the property who then just won't go until they are evicted at a massive expense to the LL. Especially if those tenants then leave the property damaged, the LL has absolutely no power at all to reclaim what the tenant has cost them, or the money they have lost as a result of the non payment of rent.

I'd say tenants have plenty of power. They aren't forced to stay somewhere with a crap LL.

Outraged, You say "They are doing what the majority of people should be doing and trying to provide themselves with some financial security". My Dh is a higher rate tax payer and he is trying to provide his family with some financial security, only after he has paid his tax and then our rent to the landlord, there really isn't much left over to provide for our future security. If you're not on housing benefit and don't own a house, what happens to families like ours in our old age?

You also say that tenants aren't forced to stay somewhere with a crap landlord. In many cases they are though. It's very expensive to move, to have to reconnect all your utility services. That's if you're lucky enough to get your deposit back, and I know from bitter experience that many good tenants do not get back their deposit. Many landlords will do anything to keep some if not all of it. That's before we get onto the costs of actually physically moving house. For this reason, many tenants are trapped. It can be thoroughly depressing, particularly when you are deemed to be a 'high earner'.

I totally and utterly agree with you Outraged . I personally will do all I can to prevent being depended on any handouts from the government which can be taken away on a whim. I will do my utmost to prepare myself for a decent old age (God willing) financially.

I am not a BTL landlord btw,but have nothing against them.
The only way to resolve the matter of enormous spending on HB is to build,build,build. Make sure there is sufficient good quality housing stock for people in need,while they are in need. No life long tenancies. With that rents will automatically come down,which will make BTL less interesting for investors which will bring down the desirability to buy up all the stock on the housing market lower end off the scale, so they can become affordable for lower income households.

Do those of you who are employed but also receive tax credits realise that when uc comes in you become the feckless benefit claimants instantly just because you are on a low wage

if subsidies go down rents wont go down as ll's still have mortgages and expenses to pay.

"also, any sensible LL will find out what the LHA rate is for their size property in their area. if they have a 3 bed they will know how much their tenants will be entitled to receive (at most) and price the place accordingly. in my area rents are pretty reflective of the LHA rates just a bit higher."

That doesnt make sense as the LHA allowance is based on the average of the lowest 25% of rents in the area.

These lowest 25% aren't always accessoble to tenants on housing benefit, as the ll's can't or don't want to take hb tenants, so more often then not the limited of supply of rents that are available to hb tenants are those which are above LHA rent. This is the same if you get £40 hb or £800 hb.