Families on UC

[happypickle]

Off the back off another thread and doing a few searches of the benefits calculator, it seems the sweet spot for a lot of families will be to be renting, have a low/medium earning (typically) husband and an unemployed mother who stays at home. This seems to yield the highest return for UC, no childcare expenses and a happy mum who gets to stay at home and be there for her children.

It doesn't seem to be fair that UC system supports this whilst middle earners will be expected to both work full time in order to pay their mortgage and pay extortionate child care fees to probably be in a worse financial position than those on UC.

I know the theory is that long term, the working couple will be better off as they will have better pensions and career progression. But is that really the case?

It doesn't even need to be a middling amount. My DP works 40 hours a week. I work 16. I earn 50p above minimum wage. He earns just under a £1 more. We total about 32k before tax. We have 1 child we get child benefit for and that it is.

The people who receive UC are usually renters, relatively low paid lone parents and those with disabled children.

If you have a mortgage, are in a couple and your children are (thankfully) not disabled it is very unlikely you would get lots of UC apart from help with childcare costs.

I agree and then you sell your house to pay for your care while those who lived in rented accommodation with a sahp get exactly the same care as you for nothing. The system is broken.

You could gift the house to your children as long as you expect to live seven years. Many people will never move to a care home.

I'm not sure what people mean when they say people 'don't get that money' re rent, because it goes to the landlord. Surely you could say anyone doesn't 'get' the portion of their wage that goes towards paying their rent? Of course they get that money, and it enables them to pay rent, and have somewhere to live. Am I missing something?

I thought that by making the next poster’s comment in bold it was obvious, and as you didn’t recognise the comment as your own I assumed (wrongly) that you’d check back on which comment I’d c&P’d.
I apologise that you clearly didn’t understand that.

What they mean is that if you compare someone who gets £1000 in housing element over someone who gets £300 in housing element if both get to live in a one bedroom flat, then the person with the £1000 doesn’t feel the benefit of that extra £700. They aren’t walking around with £700 spending money. The only person benefitting is the landlord.

The person whose rent is more gets the benefit of living in a nicer/bigger/better maintained property/in a more desirable area with more amenities, though. Housing isn't priced randomly. I'm sure the person who is in a £300 flat would love to be able to live in a £1500 flat without spending any extra money. It's just nonsense.

You don’t even have the grace to apologise.

That's not necessarily true at all. Plenty of areas in the south east are shite and still expensive. I had to go to Barking not long ago and it was dire, wouldn't live there if you paid me. But the rent there costs more than double what mine does in the east midlands.

I did nothing wrong!
What a way to derail posts on a goady thread!