To think dh is winding me up when he says some people on benefits are getting £500 a week?

[angelos02]

I'm pretty sure he's talking bullocks? Otherwise why the fuck would anyone do a minimum wage job?

Doesn't matter if its popular, doesn't mean its right, or effective, the death penalty is popular, and if we had a referendum we'd have that back.

Further to what I said earlier too, the average propensity to consume of those who are lower earners is higher, so there will be a resultant fall in aggregate demand.

Its a people pleasing policy, doesn't mean its economically sound.

PS the Tories promised not to cut tax credits etc in their election campaign, so I doubt "its why they got in".

Tbh I would hardly be suprised if the Tories started a nazi style propoganda campaign. Admittedly they wouldn't take it to those extremes, but in terms of stirring up the hatred they are certainly giving it full effort.

It's just divide and rule.

but hang on they'll only be entitled to that much housing benefit because that's all it will take to top them up to the maximum of £500pw in their pocket - so they will have the money to pay that rent out of their other benefits to be fair. it's not that they will not have the money but that it won't auto be HB that pays the rent for them but that they'll have to look at their whole income and to pay it.

£500 per week means even if they had to top up their rent by £250 they'd still have £250 after that for bills, food, transport, etc. it's hardly cause to be homeless - just pay the rent.

sorry - i'm not on that 'side' of the argument that is sticking the boot in to the poor no matter what as you know but i don't think that that requires homelessness - just an acceptance of less cash after you pay the rent.

what that chart shows is that people with several children are already getting a LOT of benefit. to be fair no one needs £500 in their pocket per week after paying rent. who has that? in all honesty if i was in that situation i'd be saving a grand a month.

It's possible but doesn't happen that much.

I would ask your dh to investigate how much fraud, tax avoidance and evasion and other white collar crimes cost the British taxpayer rather than focusing on those benefitting from the welfare state.

If he compares the two perhaps he will see which needs more attention.

honey I agree with your example. But the vast majority aren't in that situation, or if they are it includes disability which is already earmarked for that, rather than household budget.

Most of the time it will be people topping up rent from £70 jsa, or around £150 with a child. And on a household budget like that, £30, or even £10 is a hell of a lot to find. It's very different to do that for a few weeks, or even a few months, when presumably you wouldn't need to replace anything. But longer term is very different.

Or indeed if that same person took on a zero hour contract, because they don't even have that security.

As someone said above about 90% of people who rent don't get housing benefit so it does not particularly distort the rental market except that many many of those landlords have mortgages which prohibit them from taking housing benefit tenants and the HB rates are too low to cover their costs anyway.

over a quarter of people in London get housing benefit. That apparently means that they would struggle to pay rent without housing benefit. What do you think would happen to rents if a quarter of the people couldn't pay rent at the current levels? could rents possibly stay as high?

Honey badger people will more children with you or disabilities need more than £500 a week . Our family would really struggle if we had only £500 a week cash after paying rent.

you'd struggle on £500 AFTER rent? how?

and disability is not included in the £500 cap so yes this really is families with three children getting £500 not including PIP, DLA or disability elements of other benefits.

I disagree with the people on benefits don't know how other people live argument.

The vast majority of people receiving benefits are either the working poor getting their low wages topped up or are people who have worked and for whatever reason cannot for a period of time.

Of course they are aware how working people live.

But of course benefits critics like to tell themselves that, because of course they know exactly how people on benefits live. With their huge tellies and hedonistic lifestyles.

Dont forget the fags booze and subsciption to Sky Sports + the noteriety of being on Channel 5

£500 per week. 2k per month. I'm not on benefits but

My bills including rent are £1500... £500 for food clothes household stuff for 5,6,7,8+ people. I just dont see how it's possible

portia don't be silly, people on benefits don't pay for those from their automatic cash allowance of £500p/w. They get them paid for them, alongside the utilities and goat.

per week lurked - £500 after rent per week.

not including disability benefits remember.

Its not 500 after rent, its 500 INCLUDING rent. Most who are anywhere near 500 per week have ridiculous rents. Now, there is the argument that they should move as soon as they become unemployed of course, but I don't know how well it sits with me tbh..

well it will be including rent hence that table projecting how that's going to look for people in terms of what their housing allowance will reduce to. prior to cap it wasn't/isn't including rent - hence the table. this is how it's going to change.

Honey I am disabled I have seven dc , two are disabled. £500 a week after rent wouldn't come close to our expenses.

IHoney badger no people with three dc do not receive £500 BEFORE disability elements. They may including HB receive £500 INCLUDING disability premiums. You have no clue how much having a disability costs do you?
The extra tax credits and pip/ dla do not come close to meeting the extra expenses.

i have a disability actually and have lived on disability benefits for a couple of periods in my life so please don't just assume.

andnow - as i said the £500 cap is not going to include disability benefits like dla/pip which are for disability costs.

In 1971 family income supplement was introduced for low earning families. They were less generous than working tax credits, but had the same aim. So this has existed in some form for years. Before they were introduced, many families lived in real poverty. Kids without shoes kind of poverty.

Honey the cap won't include it however you would not receive £500 in tax credits alone without disability elements.
You know about your disability costs then not others.