Working families £18k worse off than benefits claimants after budget

[shoelances]

This is madness. Can the last taxpayer in the UK please close the door behind them.

www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/households-on-handouts-to-be-18-000-better-off-than-families-on-modest-wages/ar-AA1RqxlQ

There are some very disturbing ideas on this thread. Where do you propose these people live, and would you be happy for your child to live there/be treated this way?

There are many reasons someone might be evicted for ASB, which are beyond their control, including mental illness and malicious neighbours, neither of which is prevented by coming from a middle-class family.

Money does not protect you from mental or physical illness. It's worth remembering that when you're calling for support to be withdrawn from the most vulnerable in our society.

A better way of dealing with ASB would be to properly invest in mental health care and adult social services to prevent the issue.

Please.... no one accidentally has accusations of anti social behaviour. Think first! If someone is not capable of evaluating the outcome, they are in no way fit to be part of a functioning society never mind being rewarded with a house!

What society does with them is a topic for another thread....

The key point to this thread is such individuals would release a much needed house to a more deserving case.

I do. I've posted about it several times. It has never been to court, as the accusations have never been proven, but it does happen.

And what you propose is sadly already the case in most of the country. It is very difficult to get rehoused if you've been evicted for ASB. We recently supported an 18-year-old who was evicted from her supported housing for ASB. I don't know how she behaved in the home, and I don't believe the story she told me was 100% true, but I do know that while she was with us, she was quiet, polite, and helpful, which is evidence that she is not beyond help.

It took us 5 months to find her a suitable home because no one would rent to her after her past eviction. I'd hate to think where she would be if we hadn't stepped but given that she'd turned to sex work before coming to us, I don't think things would have worked out well for her.

She is a child who made a mistake. She does not deserve to be punished with homelessness and poverty because of that.

Social housing isn’t subsidised.

Sorry but you can’t blame anti social neighbours on poor mental health. That just ridiculous. It takes a lot these days to evict tenants from properties because of their behaviour. Maybe you need to spare a thought for their poor neighbours

You know who suffers most from their anti social behaviour The OTHER tenants.

Oh and im glad you mentioned subsidy although you might wish you hadnt.

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-tenants-forced-to-pay-for-their-richer-neighbours-gyms

You know who suffers most from their anti social behaviour The OTHER tenants.

Oh and im glad you mentioned subsidy although you might wish you hadnt.

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-tenants-forced-to-pay-for-their-richer-neighbours-gyms

You absolute can blame some anti-social behaviour on mental health. Have you ever lived next door to someone in the grip of a psychotic episode?

There may be in some cases but certainly not all. My sympathies lay with the neighbours

DLA for disabled children also isn't means tested.

I saw this post this just now, and it completely sums up that a many year qualified professional can just opt out and choose to be a SAHP but be topped up to the exact same money. People are doing it, the system incentivises them to do it, however much people try to say it doesn’t. Look at the spiralling numbers. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/parenting/5454109-am-i-missing-something-childcare

It won't be the exact money. In fact it will be a lot less.

@Coffeeandbooks88how will it be less? She said she won’t be worse off and so is looking to claim UC and not go back to work

How long is her child going to be in full-time nursery, though?

If that poster is actually considering this and not just rage-baiting, she is lacking in common sense. Firstly, she will lose her workplace pension contributions and career progression. Secondly, the job market is dire right now and only likely to get worse. The chance of her getting back into her career at the same level, on the same pay after a 3-year break is slim to none. If she goes ahead, she is setting herself up for either a life of poverty or a long, hard slog to climb back up the ladder.

@Frequencybut working costs money, transport, parking, childcare extras etc. That money each month you can just put into a self invested pension. She’s band 5 NHS and so believes she can get back into it. Either way, you get three years UC with no work requirements, maybe have another baby and get three more years etc.

The whole system needs overhauling

It won't cover the wage she will lose or the 30 hours she would have got at nine months (presume in England). I suspect she is also using the unreliable calculators you get online. She also has a mortgage so less help as well there. She will be worse off.

Not to mention she probably hasn't factored in that she may be sanctioned for purposely leaving her job.

@Coffeeandbooks88my friend has the 30 hours funded and nursery still costs her £1200 a month for one child. This lady refers to £800 nursery, so I’d assume that it is including the 30 hours funded.

My nursery for two children (I don’t receive funding) is over £5k a month. Just for context, childcare currently is high. The bills went up significantly after the NI raid from labours budget (30% more for me, raised in April)

But you aren’t sanctioned if you have a child under three?

Are you saying Private rent is identical to social housing rent?

If so, why not abolish social housing?

I've just looked it up and it does seem as though becoming a caregiver, which I'm assuming means a child under 3 falls under their good cause requirement for leaving a job which would mean no sanction.

You're correct.

Private rent is for profit, social rents are charged at cost. That is the difference.

Not taking a profit is not the same as being subsidised, but this has been explained, with evidence, almost weekly on MN, so I suspect you already realise this, but it does not fit your agenda, so you opt to ignore it.

My social housing rent is the exact same amount as the private rental I moved from. It isn't automatically cheaper.

The bottom line is always how much a person pays. If you pay a mortgage you are interested in what goes out of your bank account each month. The pedantics of how you get there, not important.

Maybe if you are reliant on tax payer funding you are not interested in either sum? Or is there another reason?

OK. So why not scrap social housing or private housing. Just have one rental option for everyone?