AIBU about Tax Credits cuts,

[Weathergames]

Commons back Osborne plan for tax credit cuts
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34260902

I don't claim anymore because I now earn enough to support myself - because I could work and progress my career as well as my life while being a single parent.

AIBU to think this is a total travesty and so many single parents are going to have their life's devastated by this - and what about people in domestic abuse situations who will now be more unable to leave?

Maybe I some benefits scrounger - but the tax credits enabled me to be a good parent and role model to my kids - without their feckless father affecting that .... AIBU?!

Yes all is peachy in the world of social housing

If you look a bit closer, you'll see there's no heating from May 1 to October 1. Much like everyone else's house up and down the country. Nothing to stop anyone from just using a space heater.

Storm in a teacup.

Im aware of that I read the article last year. Its ONE example Bottlecap I do know of others. And btw ppl with certain illnesses like cancer feel the cold or is cancer inactive between May and October.

Heres another "storm in a teacup"

www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/willesden_pensioner_forced_to_live_with_no_hot_water_and_heating_for_seven_months_contracts_pneumonia_1_1389701

"If you look a bit closer, you'll see there's no heating from May 1 to October 1. Much like everyone else's house up and down the country. "

what country is that then, Spain, or just south east England?

In Scotland my heating has been on for ages.

So yes you could live in that area and obtain it just because you fancy living there. You may not get any assistance with obtaining a house if you are not homeless but if your means dictate that you could obtain LHA via HB then yes you will get it

if that's how it works it should be no wonder why rents are so high. we all pile into south kensington and the government tops us up.

www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/11722587._Freezing__elderly_women_accuse_housing_association_of_poor_care_after_Christmas_heating_failure/

red

Exactly how else do you think a means tested benefit like HB/LHA should work?

No matter how much your rent is you cannot obtain more help than the LHA allows nor more than your income entitles you to.

You appear to be taking great exception to the ability of low income families being able to claim LHA anywhere they actually live in the UK. People are not living in mansions that cost thousands a week to rent all on HB they are not even living in houses that cost more than something like the bottom 30% of the rental market in that area and in very expensive areas they are very likely to be funding a not insignificant amount of the rent themselves.

HB is totally different to social housing

You appear to be taking great exception to the ability of low income families being able to claim LHA anywhere they actually live in the UK. People are not living in mansions that cost thousands a week to rent

yes, they are living in incredibly expensive housing at the expense of the taxpayer.

even at the rate you gave, that is close to 1600 a month for a 3 bed. that's an incredibly huge amount to give to one family to live in an area when they could be housed for much cheaper elsewhere. the other problem with HB, unlike social housing, is that it can really be claimed by anyone. so yes HB is different from social housing, and yes I don't think we should have social housing in zone 1.

I went to prevent homelessness. homelessness is bad, especially for children. but in order to not have a ballooning HB bill, we may not want to house people in south kensington.

You know, I am too terrified to actually look and work out how much I will lose.

I work three jobs part time to support my children. I work in excess of fifty hours some weeks. I care for my grandparents. Additionally I attend night school to try and obtain qualifications to change careers.

I have worked all my adult life. Hard. Fucking hard actually. I have Not quite worked my fingers to the bone, but I do have blisters on my palms through heavy cleaning because deep cleaning and filthy jobs pay more than domestic cleaning.

On Sunday I butted into a thread about someone earning 48k and asking for investment advice. I received a lot of very kind, generous and supportive pms from lovely mumsnetters.

I am in the position I am in due to a series of extremely unfortunate circumstances that not even the most fanatic hard line Tory could dispute. Each and every time I have picked myself up, changed direction and worked hard to change my circumstances. I am the proverbial hamster on the wheel running faster and faster to prevent being thrown off.

I used to have a good job, a home and security. Now I don't. I don't expect others to accommodate that. I don't expect state support.

What I do expect is some fucking respect and a small dose of empathy.

The way some people speak of the poor is a disgrace. It is not a crime to be poor. It is not an individual's fault. Do people really think that one chooses to be in the circumstances that they find themselves in?

I could describe the utter hopelessness and humiliation I feel at my situation. I could relate how I sometimes send my children to my gps to check that they are ok, at mealtimes because I know they will be fed. The tears I have shed over simple things such as once keeping my son from school because I couldn't afford the ingredients for food tech. Losing stuff like school photos and the precious memories.

I for one am breaking my arse trying again and again to improve my prospects so a little compassion would go a hell of a way.

And those that raise their eyebrows at my emotional outburst. I hope to god you find yourself in my situation one day. I really do.

Redstrawberry: "Why does it count? The reason I say it shouldn't is that others aren't subject to the same rules. If I want to live in your neighbourhood (likely central London expensive neighbourhood), I am simply not entitled to live there on state support like you are. why? Why this disparity? why should the state pay for you to live there, and not me, despite both of us wanting that? we can make this problem more extreme, though still realistic, in the case where you are not working and I work in your neighbourhood. In that case, despite the fact that you don't work, and I work in your neighbourhood, the state still pays for you to stay there and not me. That's madness, and breeds huge resentment."

Because I was already here when it was cheap. I brought up my daughter here and did work here for many years (and do sometimes right now, when I'm able). I've mostly paid my own rent. I did not choose to live in an expensive area; that has changed while I've been here.

Why should you be more entitled to my flat than me? It sounds like you think you are.

And what solution do you think there should be? I'm serious. Moving out to private rental would be insane until private rentals are made better - and we're in agreement about them being a huge problem so there's no argument there. There are no homeswaps available. My council doesn't offer the chance to be housed outside the borough even if you ask for it, unless you're over 50 and only want a 1-bedroom flat in specific locations. Even if you've been given medical priority for a different home and there are none available here, you can't apply elsewhere.

TBH I think plenty of my neighbours would move away if they had the option, but we really don't.

If you extend your thinking then you might as well tell all the poor people to move to Poland or something because it's so much cheaper there. If you disagree with that, why? Why is it different to telling someone to move out of their city where there are jobs, their family and schools and long-standing ties to the location?

BTW I agree that affordable housing still does have advantages over private, but I wanted to clarify what those advantages actually are. I've encountered people who think that social housing is always rent-free, even if not on benefits, and that it comes with a free fridge and oven and the like. You're not that daft, but it's worth making sure that we're talking about the same thing when it comes to what you actually get with affordable housing these days. And it really isn't 80% rent in reality - read my post again. The 80% is a bald-faced lie.

Because I was already here when it was cheap. I brought up my daughter here and did work here for many years (and do sometimes right now, when I'm able). I've mostly paid my own rent. I did not choose to live in an expensive area; that has changed while I've been here.

this may sound callous, but so what? I also didn't choose to for rents to go sky high in zone 1, but I don't have access to cheap social housing there. it sounds like you want the security of ownership, but didn't actually have to risk buying it.

I actually think that tenants, private or otherwise, should have some form of tenure. but social housing advocates seem to only advocate for more social housing. That leaves private tenants out in the cold.

Why should you be more entitled to my flat than me? It sounds like you think you are.

Nobody should be more entitled to it. But you are saying that you, and a small segment of the population, should be shielded from high rents, when everyone else is subject to them. Why is that fair?

And what solution do you think there should be? I'm serious. Moving out to private rental would be insane until private rentals are made better

what you should do and what society should do are different. I think you should do what's best for you and your family, and it sounds like staying put is the right decision.

What society should, and we are completely far from this, is remove the reliance on HB (we should have social housing for the truly desperate), and build more houses so that rents and prices come down FOR EVERYONE. Not just the chosen few. HB and social housing take up a huge percentage of our budget. Why not build homes (creating jobs and better housing) and stop funneling money to private landlords?

If you extend your thinking then you might as well tell all the poor people to move to Poland or something because it's so much cheaper there. If you disagree with that, why? Why is it different to telling someone to move out of their city where there are jobs, their family and schools and long-standing ties to the location?

wages are also lower in Poland. that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for a poor person to move to Poland. Their skills may be in demand there. That's actually what happens to when a Polish person moves here. They uproot their family and long standing ties, because they can make a better life here.

redstrawberry10 you should widen your knowledge base.
Poland & other Eastern European countries are pretty vocal right now against migrants. Doubt they would want the English poor.

Go Home

Can anyone else chime in? Otherwise it's just me saying you live in an area that suddenly becomes expensive = you are not the same as someone just moving into the area, and redstrawberry saying that it doesn't matter if you already lived there. Do other people on here really side with him?

Councils certainly don't because you cannot just walk into Tower Hamlets Housing and say "Hi there! I want to live here, so give me a home!"

I am not saying that it's right private tenants should be put up with a shitty situation. I've already said that twice now. I'm not going to argue it again. You saying that social housing tenants should also be in the same situation does not help anybody. We do not need to argue about better rights for private sector tenants; we agree about that.

Redtstrawberry, didn't you say you were American? Is that why you don't know that social housing and housing benefit - which are not the same thing, btw - take up a very small amount of the budget? Most social housing, like my Edwardian estate, paid off its costs generations ago; the largest drain on housing benefit is not social housing; and both of them put together don't amount to "a huge percentage of our budget." Get your facts right.

@modern

you should be less condescending. I know about eastern europe. what you post says nothing new.

Is that why you don't know that social housing and housing benefit - which are not the same thing, btw - take up a very small amount of the budget? Most social housing, like my Edwardian estate, paid off its costs generations ago; the largest drain on housing benefit is not social housing; and both of them put together don't amount to "a huge percentage of our budget." Get your facts right.

I know the difference between social housing and housing benefit, which should be clear from my post.

just because social housing is paid off does not mean it costs nothing, and I am not talking about upkeep. There are huge opportunity costs; those are state assets (owned by all) from which you disproportionately benefit.

I am American and live in the UK. What do you consider a huge portion of budget? it's all relative. Next to state pensions, the biggest outlay of DWP is housing benefit.

So, if you think the second biggest portion of welfare isn't anything to worry about), well we disagree on what it means to be a huge portion then.

I don't know, scifisam. I don't like the idea of London being only for the wealthy. But as London becomes increasingly expensive, the Zone 1 housing stock (you have a flat in S. Ken - some of the most expensive real estate in the world, as you know) becomes like a lottery ticket. It is great for the person who gets it, but not for the huge numbers that don't.

I think the Zone 1-3 stock should be sold off and the proceeds diverted towards an arrangement that can benefit more people.

90% of those affected by benefits cuts in Hackney are the closed orthodox Jewish communities where 12 children are common, the men pray all day and women are left with childcare and if they can find it work.

If a privately renting tenant gets informed that their landlord is putting the rent up massively then they have to move, if I lose my job then I might have to move to a cheaper place, and it wont matter one bit how long I've lived there. I'm not sure why council tenants are the only ones that will never have to move.

They will now if they are up to the benefits cap level although where remains to be seen. One court decision said Milton Keynes was beyond the pale and too far (!) even though plenty of those who claim no housing benefit and commute into London have to endure it.

One court decision said Milton Keynes was beyond the pale and too far (!) even though plenty of those who claim no housing benefit and commute into London have to endure it.

I, for one, was speechless at that one. Truth is stranger than fiction.

even at the rate you gave, that is close to 1600 a month for a 3 bed. that's an incredibly huge amount to give to one family to live in an area when they could be housed for much cheaper elsewhere. the other problem with HB, unlike social housing, is that it can really be claimed by anyone. so yes HB is different from social housing, and yes I don't think we should have social housing in zone 1

You are forgetting about the benefit cap that is currently in fonce. The one that does not allow any 1 household to claim more than 500/350 dependant on circumstances in benefits in total and is applied by HB reduction.

Exemptions from the current cap are disabled people on pip and working people doing over 16 hours. In most cases someone working 16 hours PW would not be on full HB/LHA any way so would not be getting the entire LHA an obvious exclusion to this would be if the household was also entitled to disibility and sever disibility premium along with carers premium. Everybody else not exempt will be subject to the cap.

becomes like a lottery ticket.

of course winners of the lottery don't object.

yet there are students who have to pay ridiculous tuition (by many countries standards it is high), people with disabilities have had their benefits cut, and there is little money for retraining.

Everybody else not exempt will be subject to the cap.

that's fine. the point was not the 1600, but the massive HB and social housing bill.

we are in a place and time where benefits are clearly not for the needy. it's now to keep people living in the most expensive part of EU. that doesn't seem to be an great use of public money.

Just because an area is wealthy it does not mean those people in it on very low incomes are not needy.

Bottle, yes, the judge felt that was just too far for people to be away from mother and "support networks". the fact that those of us who work full time and fund these people who work part time or not at all had to move hundreds of miles away from all family to get work and have no "support network " at all because we don't have the option doesn't seem to come into it. It is that special protection from those who claim benefits who get in some sense more than those who keep them through tax which one principal reason the Tories won the election actually.

Even labour had to support the benefits cap as so many voters want it which is going to be fascinating in terms of what stance Corbyn will take given only 9% of Labour MPs support him. There will be fun ahead.

My hard-working, industrious cleaner travels for 1.5 hours to get to my house on the cusp of Zones 1 & 2 (Fulham). Meanwhile, there are scores of unemployed, young single men living in 500K HA flats all around me. They rise as I set out on the afternoon school run and smoke pot on their stoop. I expect this is the recipe for a Tory victory.