SnipSnipMrBurgess
Jobseekers benefit for two qualified adults plus three kids is €403 per week; that excludes the €96 weekly that encompasses their child benefit which brings their weekly income to €500 per week. From that they pay €30 towards their rent. Our utilities are €23 per week (gas, electric, broadband), so being generous say €35 for them. That leaves €435 for food, healthcare, clothing, and social expenses a week is very generous. It's certainly a lot more than we get left over after working full time, paying our housing costs et, college fees, and health costs due to chronic illness.
A PP asked what's the point in reducing benefits to the point of existence; by motivating/forcing people to work its twofold. Firstly it's giving them a sense of pride and respect for an honest day's toil, and enabling them to contribute to society (yes raising kids is contributing but many parents work too - which PP Jw35 thinks should be optional but isn't!). Secondly it's showing their children that if you want something, you work for it - the taxpayer shouldn't and won't give it to you for free.
I do wish the disabled were treated with more compassion. Removing job supports, like those mentioned for the deaf PIP, is wrong. I can only hope funding may be diverted there in the future.
I don't agree with selling social housing to in situ tenants. It's a taxpayers asset and should be retained for its purpose, not sold off at discount. I know of one person who availed of the scheme, sold it a few years later to a family member, and within five years was back looking for a house and got it!
Jw35 The stay at home choice is no longer possible for single mums or couples on a low income. There's something wrong with that IMO
The choice is available provided you fund it yourself. The taxpayer should not be required to support an individual's decisions in life.
The disappearing parent desperately needs tackling; collect it with taxes, and the priority when calculating needs to be the cost of feeding, housing and clothing the children. Why should the resident parent go without so the NRP live the life of Riley? The Revenue and CMS need their heads knocking together Australia and NZ have data matched and collected at source for decades, and they prevent travel abroad if you're behind.
Too many blame others for their circumstances. Why didn't people gain qualifications when they were younger? Why aren't they studying now?
Those baying for rents to come down and giving out to private landlords. Yes the rents are often too high, but equally there are options. Move to somewhere cheaper. Yes it might be miles away, but there are cheap areas in the U.K. If you want to live in a metropolitan area, you'll need to pay for it. The costs of land and materials drive the costs of building homes, and unless the government is going to swoop in and provide funding for all the homes needed, there is a place for private landlords. They are not and cannot be expected to be a charity. So again it falls to if you want to live in a particular location - whether it's for family connections or whatever - you either need to pay up or move out. I don't see why there should be social housing in Westminster, Chelsea, or any central city location.
PAYG utility meters should be on equal rates as bill pay; they get the money upfront, so collection costs are minimal.
I'm not talking from a place of ignorance. My parents split when I was ten, I lived in social housing and my mother claimed benefits.