A third of households will receive around £1200 support with energy - described by Sunak as the most vulnerable

54 replies

cakeorwine · 27/05/2022 19:07

It's great for people to get support. But AIBU to think that a country where a 1/3 of households will need such large support is a country with some massive inequalities and too many people living close to the edge. We are supposed to be a 'wealthy' country - but this has shown that a relatively large number of households do live close to the edge with not too much to spare at the end of the month.

OP posts:

Babyroobs · 28/05/2022 12:09

Nat6999 · 27/05/2022 23:58

I've lost £178 a week as ds left school mid A levels, CTC & CB finished the day he was 18, I got the disabled child element of CTC as ds gets enhanced PIP. Without the £1200 I am getting & my warm homes discount as I am disabled as well I don't know how I would manage, I worked out that after paying utilities, food, broadband etc I would only have £73 a month left to pay for things like my incontinence supplies, clothes & anything else I needed, that was before the energy price cap went up.

If your DS is not working himself now because of his disabilities then he can claim Universal credit in his own right and contribute to the household that way? Enhanced PIP with UC with limited capability for work ( after he is assessed ) is around £1300 a month for him. More than enough for him to help make up the shortfall and help with household costs.

sst1234 · 28/05/2022 12:24

cakeorwine · 28/05/2022 09:46

No employer needs to pay the going rate if the taxpayer will pick up the tab and make up the gap. But try saying this out loud and watch people frothing at the mouth as though someone punched them in the face

It's hard - we do live in a country where rents (and mortgages) are expensive, childcare is expensive, lots of things that people need are expensive, and there are a lot of people who are in a vulnerable position as this cost of living crisis has exposed.

I do wonder how close to the edge many people are in this country - and how much household disposable income many people do have.

I suppose a question could be - if your household expenses went up by say 10%, would you still have more income than expenditure?

Or - what percentage would your household expenses have to increase by so you would have more expenditure than income? (And do you have savings to cover it?)

Expensive relative to what? Wages, right. Yes. And that’s because we are a low wage economy. And that’s because the tax payer subsidizes low wages, keeping people dependent on handouts rather than earning whatever the market rate would be if employers were not subsidized. A legacy of nu labour. A drug that’s almost impossible to give up. A disastrous way to set up the economy.

Nothappyatwork · 28/05/2022 12:47

TigerRag · 28/05/2022 11:34

It would cost too much money to do it by household income. Quicker and cheaper to just do it based on whether you get benefits.

Show quote history

In the olden days when Pauline was sat in the tax office with a calculator I might agree with you but in the days of RPA where everything is calculated on your income and HMRC have last years earnings at their fingertips I would actually dispute this heavily it would take them seconds to work out peoples income.

Waxonwaxoff0 · 28/05/2022 16:35

worriedaboutmoney2022 · 28/05/2022 09:38

The problem with this is people who work full time, aren't entitled to any tax credits or universal credits and work full time but still don't have very much left over with the ever increasing bills

It should be done on household income not who gets the most benefits

Maybe if you've got no kids but you can if you have kids. If you're a single parent working full time on a low wage you do get tax credits/UC. A household with an income of under £17k gets the full amount of child tax credits which is around £67 a week.

Flip

1 2 3