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?

I shop around for stuff and most stuff I get is special offer. There is me, DH, DD (3) and DS (2) and even taking off the costs of nappies and such we spend at least 60 per week on food/milk. However, we do have an extra 3 kids on a weekend..spreading this out over the week though I guess it would make us a household of 5 like you (3 kids for 2 days = 1 kid for 6 days...lol). I genuinely would like some tips honeybadger, as we could do with freeing up 25 quid a week tbh.

OreosAreTasty

Ahh yes, I remember the days when I first moved out and I was spending a tenner a week on food shopping as after paying rent and such I had 30 quid left. 10 had to go on gas meter or I would be freezing 4 days into the week. 5 on electric. TV license. left about ten quid for food. I lived on toast and beans, and potatoes in various forms. Drank nothing but water except if my mum came over and she would buy a 2 litre bottle of milk as she liked tea... Its do-able, but impractical for a family. And horrendous if it was for longer than a few weeks. I just could NOT ever give my kids that kind of diet...

as the above poster can atest - if you ever face actual 'poverty' you learn to manage.

how about instead of us proving to you that we can shop and cook for x amount you prove to us how it is essential to spend more than £115 a week. i'd be interested to see.

I also agree that most would be able to manage on 500 per week btw. My god we would be living i luxury with that amount..especially given we are lucky enough to have a HA house and our current rent is only 90 quid per week. However, I have never attempted to budget for (for example) a family of 7+. Again it can be argued that they shouldn't have had so many kids, but we don't know the circumstances...in general though 500 per week is more than enough for an 'average' family (with no disability costs)

Yes I get you. If it was just me and dp..then yes we would live of beans..pasta..if needed. I just know I couldn't feed my 17yo 14yo 13yo and 10yo on 35pound for the week. 17yo can finish a pack of cereal in 3 days. A loaf of bread would last a day. Believe me I doesn't happen very oftenice these days but I have tried because we've been down to our last 40 pound till payday and we ended up leading money because we just ran out of milk bread etc. The way I do it we don't run out of bread and then I don't have to go do top up shops through the week which tends to cost more with travel costs or going local which is more expensive.

If you rent privately in London though, surviving on £500 a week would be tough as rents are so high.

If you rent privately in London though, surviving on £500 a week would be tough as rents are so high.

--

yeah I mentioned this earlier on in the thread. It has been argued that people should just move as soon as they become unemployed. To me thats a bit ridiculous to expect of someone ESPECIALLY if there is a high chance they will be unemployed in the short term. If these exist beyond the dailymail pages, people who have never worked (but have no disability) who live in London I would have no issue with expecting them to move somewhere cheaper...I am just not totally convinced that these people exist. Especially not as many as some make out.

bearing in mind we are talking short term as this is for people without disabilities (for whom the cap doesn't apply) - so we're talking temporarily unemployed able adults.

Not always that simple

All welfare benefits have risen in real terms since 1970, except income support. That has remained constant.

Yes, from experience it costs a LOT to move house. I do realise this. Just trying to predict the arguments before they happen.

If someone who lived where I do was receiving 500 per week in benefits I would think it was a bit OTT as average rents seem to be from 90-120 per week. In London though, its very very different. having said that if someone near me was recieving so much in 'benefits' (I actually hate that word) it would be none of my business and I certainly wouldn't be jealous of their lifestyle, even if they had gasp sky sports. Honestly, short of not being able to work (which is me at the moment so I feel it) it would be a sad sad life to purposely CHOSE not to work...

I would be happy to be healthy, not work, and still have enough income to be fine. I have plenty to keep me busy.

Really? Short of winning the lottery or something and being able to jet off wherever I pleased, I would love nothing more than to be able to go back to my crappy minimum wage job. Sitting around all day drives me insane sometimes. Guess I have never thought some people would be happy having just enough to get by without having to work. I actually enjoy working...despite moaning about it constantly

I have no experience of London whatsoever so I couldn't possibly comment on that. I live in quite a run down area. High unemployment, high drug usage, high teenage pregnancy it's not ideal but we keep to ourselves and I've done a reasonable job of raising good kids considering the area we are in. I think home is what you make it and when your in a position where you have very little you just learn to live within your means. I'm still a little like it now I won't put the heating on straight away I make everyone put on a jumper. Close doors etc..i feel privileged to be able to have a home..and for my dp to work so hard for little money to provide and so that we can have little extras..it hasn't always been this way for me so I appreciate what I have. Some people are really struggling and as someone who has been there it's can't help but feel for them. Especially if like me they were out there everyday searching for jobs going for interviews and hoping for a better life.
There are a rare variety who think they don't have to work and the world owes them something but most people like me just want to have the self respect to be able to provide for their family.

Same Vickyyy
I can't work atm..my hips and ankles have all but given up. But I'm retraining for a less physical job. My dp works full time now..and the kids drive me crazy during the day I would much prefer to be at work lol.
I love the banter and the giggles I used to have with my team. But we are all different and it would be boring if we all wanted the same things.

Argh... the £500 a week figure is about the maximum you can get, very few people will get it, it certainly isn't average.

Also, the point about selling off the HA Social housing and Peabody places in Central London? The only reason for doing that would be to get rid of this type of tennant from central London, the average social housing HB is £87.00 per week, so it wouldn't save money. Just ghettoise London full of the rich. Its not cost effective as the people living there would still need subsidised housing.

Why would we implement a policy which is to stop you from being jealous?

£500 is way above what the average person on benefits gets, I think folk should stop getting their knickers in a twist about it.

£87 per week? in london? when i was in a HA 2 bed well outside of london it was more than that.

An average house here is around 100-140 per week so I would think London would be more. You may get a flat for that but not a house.

People having to eat like as described above is not healthy and will cost the NHS more in the long run.

Same as ppl having to go to food banks (you can only go 3 times apparently) and then not eating for long periods of time. It fucks up your metabolism and makes you gain weight.

There was an interesting thread where someone tried to use concentration camp survivors as an example to prove otherwise and it was pointed out that when they were interviewed back in the 1990s a lot of them were overweight due to permanent damage to their metabolisms after the hell they had been through.

Austerity is storing up major health problems in the future.

£87 per week? in london? when i was in a HA 2 bed well outside of london it was more than that.

You mean your RENT was?

That's different from the size of an (average) HB claim. Most tenants work.

The average is £87, which means that some people get more, some get less. But the amount of envy on here in regards to it is ridiculous.

I'll repeat, just cause it gets taken from someone else doesn't mean you'll get it instead.

The repeated whinge about people living in central London properties presses my cider badly, its not about equity, its about jealousy.

The only reason for doing that would be to get rid of this type of tennant from central London, the average social housing HB is £87.00 per week, so it wouldn't save money.

I hear a lot of statements about how trying to limit the biggest part of the benefits bill outside of pensions won't make a difference.

HB is low in social housing because they are already subsidised. there isn't a god given law that says you must subsidise rents London. and the reason to do so would be to put downward pressure on rents. that doesn't mean rent will come down, as other factors may come into play, but it will put downward pressure on rents.

it's not to make people not feel jealous. it's to start restoring sanity to the market. HB is plastering over the real problem.

Social housing is already subsidised? Most social housing pays for it's self, and has done many times over. The rent is lower because its not charged at market rates.

"that doesn't mean rent will come down"

You're right it won't.

"there isn't a god given law that says you must subsidise rents London"

But it makes sense really doesn't it? How far out of London shall we move the low paid? Will their wages cover the rent of somewhere else in the commuter belt and travel in? A year pass from zone 6 is about £2,200 a year, so tell you what, we'll subsidise that.

Oh but the low paid still can't afford rent there? So what we have to pay HB too?

Nah cheaper and more cost effective to keep them where they are.

HB accounts for 10% of the private market, it doesn't determine prices and as has been proved cutting it doesn't make rents fall. Social housing isn't charged at market rate, and isn't available to all.

So effectively your proposal is selling off social housing.

Where will we house those that had it? At what cost to build? At what cost to subsidise?

All so you can think you'll get a house/flat in zone one or two?

Get the green eyed monster off your shoulder.

BTW non pension benefits make up 16% of all public spending. Won't make a difference to your pocket, or your rent, or what ever price you pay.

My HA one bedroom flat is £86 a week Its in a small market town in Essex.

Social housing is already subsidised? Most social housing pays for it's self, and has done many times over. The rent is lower because its not charged at market rates.

you hear this all the time on MN. What you wrote means it is subsidised. Almost nothing is offered at cost. If the council let places at market value they would make more money. Hence it is a subsidy to those getting below market rent (the subsidy is equal to what they could have let the place for against what they do let it for).

HB accounts for 10% of the private market, it doesn't determine prices and as has been proved cutting it doesn't make rents fall. Social housing isn't charged at market rate, and isn't available to all.

now you are just making things up. There is no such study stating that. Of course cutting HB won't necessarily make prices fall because, as I have stated many times, prices are determined by a number of factors, one of which is demand and HB pushes up demand. There are other factors as well.

But it makes sense really doesn't it?

no it doesn't. We could use the money for HB to actually build houses and sell them. That will make prices actually fall for everyone. Everyone benefits then, not just people on HB and private landlords.

All so you can think you'll get a house/flat in zone one or two?

I am not sure why you resort to name calling. As it happens, I happen to own and live in zone 2. I have seen the price of my flat skyrocket in the few years I have owned it. these screwed up policies are great for me, but not everyone else.

BTW non pension benefits make up 16% of all public spending. Won't make a difference to your pocket, or your rent, or what ever price you pay.

Hmmm. perhaps 16% is small in your world, but it's actually a fair amount.