It’s not fair those renting get more universal credit?

[Bigbenbube]

I’m a lone parent on £31k-ish. I’ve worked out if I earn a few more K I Get no more universal credit, but a couple with two kids on £60k combined get £240 a week.

Because I pay £600 mortgage. If I paid £600 but it was rent, I'd get £200. Can you not see how that is quite clearly actually very bonkers indeed?
I am quite grateful my mortgage is quite low in comparison to some areas, but still - how do they fathom that someone who pays the exact same as me, earning the same amount needs £200 extra a month 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

Well, rented? Til you “got back on your feet”. I’m not saying it would make sense to do that, but it’s like having savings isn’t it. You do have money if you own, it’s just tied up in an asset. Benefits aren’t really meant to be forever, unless you are unable to earn

It's clearly not bonkers because you are paying off an asset that you will own and then for many years after that you'll have no housing costs. As others have said the government can't/ won't be seen to be paying off people's mortgages !

But the state/taxpayer is paying off the landlords mortgage and buying them a house instead. How is that any better?

The Government (actually taxpayers) are paying off the mortgages of millions of landlords...

I guess they are paying some back in the form of tax on rental income, but yes it's a sorry situation all round.

So posters point out we shouldn’t pay anyone’s mortgage but it’s ok to pay a landlords mortgage?

Yes I acknowledged that way upthread.

This. You could choose to go and rent if you wanted!

But the £200 would be contributing to an asset that you own. You would (in extremely simple terms) retain the £200, just not as cash. And it would very likely grow significantly in value over the years, having been given to you by the taxpayer. Whereas renting is like other bills; once it's gone it's gone. It's absolutely correct that the taxpayer is not contributing to people's mortgages. It's not the same as rent.

That said, I don't think we should be contributing to the mortgages or bank balances of private landlords either. We need more social housing.

I guess the landlord could just rent to someone else though. The fact the house is rented to someone getting UC doesn’t make a difference to them. The landlord might not have a mortgage!

It isn't better, both things can be wrong. It's ridiculous that it works out this way. Ideally, everyone who needed it would be able to access social housing that is owned by the state/social landlords.

Many many claimants claiming UC with a mortgage will still get significant amounts of Uc which they are welcome to pay their mortgage with. As I've said numerous times already if they have kids on their claim they get a significantly higher work allowance than someone renting, meaning more of their earnings are disregarded before earnings start reducing their UC. So people with a mortgage benefit in this way.

The government will be quite happy to pay off landlords mortgages, as many of them are landlords themselves! Or their donors/pals are. It wouldn’t pay them to provide more social housing x

Mortgage rates are normally lower than private rents. Anyway, if you think renting is a better deal than having a mortgage why not sell or relinquish ownership of your home and find a rental property instead?

It is disgusting, hopefully at the next election people will consider this when voting.

As usual - MNs get it all wrong regarding landlords

1. most landlord mortgages are interest only. There is no "paying off" the landlords mortgage as it doesn't reduce.
2. UC does not pay "extortionate" rental prices. Every local authority sets the rates for 1,2,3 bed etc properties and UC pays that rate according to the bedrooms needed. Those rates are often much less than the rent actually charged so renters have to make up the difference.

Your post is really irritating. The benefits system is not an infinite pot of money. If you want UC to pay your mortgage you would have to pay a lot more in tax to cover the mortgage of every other privately owned house on the street too.

Even if they are only paying off the interest, they are paying for an asset which in the past few decades have increased in value hugely.

The op said an extra £200. That’s a huge amount for someone who rents from a private landlord to get. Your point about having children is redundant. The extra money is for rent.

Also with UC,if you have a mortgage,you will have a higher earnings threshold,as apposed to housing benefit.This is rarely mentioned in the 'why do people get rent paid,but won't pay my mortgage'debate.

You'll be pleased to know the percentage of homes owned by LL's is now about 6 percent lower in 2023 than in 2018. That's why rents have gone up. The same number of renters but less rental houses to home them. Many LL's are selling up and others are waiting to see what happens with the Renters Reform Bill and EPC. Just out of interest if all LL's sold up where would you house renter's who can't afford a deposit to buy because I think you'd agree there are just not enough social housing to home them all? During the LL sell off house prices haven't come down. So the argument that LL's are somehow stopping first time buyers from buying a home is redundant. Also plenty of houses on Rightmove. As you well know most LL are not on repayment mortgages but interest only so a renter is not buying the house for the LL. They are renting the house in the same way as they lease a car. No one forces a person to rent. They apply if they want too.

I only mentioned the children in relation to the work allowance, maybe didn't make the point very well.

The houses have increased hugely in value though. How many do you now own is it ten/ eleven ? You must be doing well out of it somehow !!

The biggest fuck up in this country was rtb.housing benefit costs would be a fraction of what they are now.council rents are a true reflection of rental costs not vastly inflated private rent.