UC salary threshold is £2500 pmc

[Reallyxx]

On a separate thread, I was asked to google this. So, I have.

Quite many people earn £2000-£2500 pcm that they should be able to live on. So why are there UC benefits for that group?

So more than half of the population is on UC?? I am aware gov has driven wages down over the years, but it seems the net result is of 'more' people being on benefits.

Anyway, why not just 'not tax' these groups? As it seems like people pay 'some tax from their income that is £2500 net' whilst being entitled to 'benefits'.

Why do those people not get benefits? Because their household income is too high maybe?

Do you think people on UC don’t pay tax?

I work full time and receive a UC top up, are your taxes worth more than mine?

They move to a cheaper area. The Gov shouldn't be paying £1200 a month for someone to live in a specific area when much cheaper places are available within a relatively small radius (most of the time

Then the housing allowance would be even lower. The point the previous poster was making is that the local housing allowance is less than two thirds of what local rents actually are.

I do think that we are in desperate need of appropriate social housing. That the government is paying shockingly high amounts of money to private landlords seems crazy to me. Surely with economies of scale they could build accommodation and rent it out for less than they would spend over a 20 year period for example.

There isn't really a threshold, it completely depends on circumstances.
Wasn't it you that asked for your last thread to be removed and now you've started another along similar lines?

It’s so interesting seeing people’s opinions on benefits when they don’t even understand how it all works

Last month I worked some overtime, so earned 1347 gross and got a zero payment. I'm in a council flat in Scotland so my rent is only £82 per week though.

My rent is 1450 and is paid fully by UC. My LHA is 1640 (or something like that) because I receive an extra bedroom allowance due to having a disabled child. So all that money comes back the taxpayers just to be given to LLs.

A LL receiving 1640 a money for a one bedroom flat from the taxpayers money is madness imo. It’d make more sense to have a social housing property (whether council or HA) where I could cover the rent myself and take it from my wages. The system doesn’t make much sense at all

People always say I get no help with housing because I don't pay rent. But you do get a much higher work allowance on your Uc claim because you don't claim the rent element. This has just gone up yet again to something like almost £700 a month which is completely disregarded from your earnings before deductions take place. That makes a massive difference surely ?

Not to mention the costs involved in moving.

Comprehension not your strong point OP?
If you're trying to find out whether you'd be entitled to UC you can just apply online. You never know, you might be entitled to some help. As others have said, it's entirely dependent on individual circumstances/postcode etc.
Oh and welcome to MN

A band six nurse earns £35k. That’s almost £3k a month, not under £2.5k. You also get a decent pension pot out of that amount.

You’ve confused salary with take home, I think.

Because children cost money and can't earn money

I didn't feel discriminated against when I was single and got no benefits and a single mother got benefits, made total sense to me

Equity isn't the same as discrimination

I am surprised I haven't heard (single?) parent benefits bashing in many many years

And yet loads of people still bash them

What is your actual issue? That people earning so much get benefits? That single people without children get less than single parents? You are jumping all over the place like an underprepared politician being interviewed

OP, again, why have you started another benefits thread?

Really?

Because on one thread people are being bashed if they don't move to areas with more jobs (often more expensive places to live)

And on this thread they are supposed to move to cheaper areas where often there are less jobs

Is it possible everyone could agree what poor people are being bashed for this week please? Because I'm worried about the carbon footprint of all these people nipping up and down the M1 depending on who is shouting at them

I’d absolutely agree with you. I think when you have children , especially if you have a disabled child(ren) you need security the of tenure that social housing can bring. Without accounting for price rises (so really it’ll be higher) and assuming your circumstances don’t improve the government will pay £174, 000 in rent to your landlord over the next ten years. For a one bed flat!

I don’t understand why it doesn’t make sense for the government to build a block of flats which must cost less than £100, 000 per unit and even accounting for maintenance in ten years they own a block of flats for less than the “dead money” they would of paid to the landlord.

Housing benefit isn't for your own mortgage. Just a landlords mortgage 🙄

Understand that the benefits system is to make rich people richer (reducing companies wage bills, increasing landlords rents) and poor people miserable. That is the Tory way, except ANGELA RAYNOR MISSED SOME TAX

You are jumping all over the place like an underprepared politician being interviewed

Uncannily like this.

You would expect a single person to be able to live on £2500, that’s why. I hate this sense of entitlement - why should taxpayers fund a single person on a decent income? Any extra taxpayers’ money should be allocated to hospitals, schools and people experiencing difficulties such as DV and care leavers, not those who just expect handouts.

Im a single parent. 2 children.I clear £2,318 per month. No maintenance as ex husband refuses to pay and us self employed so bugger all anyone can do about it. Im not entitled to any UC, just child benefit.

The government doesn’t drive wages down; employers do because the unions no longer have any teeth. What the government could do is outlaw zero hours contracts, set a realistic living wage and expect adults to take care of their own lives instead of blaming someone else all the time.

You have misunderstood the earning limit. The earning limit could be £600 or £2500 or any other figure you pluck out of mid air as it's different for different people.

An example of what this means could be a single 20 year old person with no housing gets let's say £300. For every £1 earnt in wages they reduce their UC by 67p. They can earn £446 and their UC will stop so their earning threshold is £446.

Same person but with housing gets let's say £500. They can earn £745 and after that it stops so their earning threshold is £446. If that person suddenly gets a payment of £2500 it will potentially be spread across 5 assessment periods meaning theh get £0 UC

It actually stops people taking one huge payment then claiming for the next x amount of months. Without it someone could do 6 months work get paid a 12k in one lump sum and claim benefits for the 6 months before and from the month after getting paid 12k.

I use these figures at random just to illustrate

Don't forget you only get that rate of you're entitled to a 1 bed. If I understand correctly some people are only entitled to a house share at an even lower rate

I think you’d be entitled to something since UC / allowances went up in April. It’d be less than£100 a month though so don’t know if you’d want to put the time into claiming. I appreciate the obligations are more onerous for self employed people

One more question: And the, 'I need to keep my hours at 16 hours per week so not to lose benefits'.

Using the example above. So UC is £1600 and they ENSURE they get a job earning £600 so they don't lose parts of 1600? This has never been explained. Wow!