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

FOR FUCK’S SAKE!!!

This is based on one imaginary family with FIVE children who are ALL disabled. You’ll all read this and think ALL benefits claimants are automatically £20K a year better off than you are. 🤦🏻‍♀️

I have a friend on UC. She has one primary and one secondary age child. She works pt as a TA and earns £800 a month, and attends college two days a week. She gets £1200 UC. Her rent (on an mouldy flat) and council tax are £1100 so she has to pay all her bills, food, travel to work/college, everything needed to raise 2 children on £900 a month. She is not living the high life. She never puts her heating on, every time I visit they’re all sitting in their big coats indoors. It’s a miserable existence.

That’s the reality of life on UC. Please don’t be taken in by these ridiculous clickbait scenarios that only apply to a handful of people.

No, they buy them largely in the hope that the value of the property will increase if they are taking out interest only mortgages. That is the main way many hope to make money.

There is a huge amount of disparity amongst UC claimants. All of them aren't living the life of Riley but neither are all of them living like your friend. Many don't work at all and are better off than people that do work including people like your friend who work and claim UC but only have two kids. If she had three more kids and worked the same amount she would probably be around £10k a year better off.

Different peoole have different circunstsnce therfore get differing amounts of money 18 k would be very extreme,
But if your friend had one or more children eligible for DLA ( care)
She would get a disability element added to her UC ,for each eligible child.

and how many of that 66% also have 3+ children?

Report him using the link in my other post. It is both highly infruriating and actually very surprising to hear about people who can can fraudulently jump these very high barriers that are put in place. It’s so
difficult in fact that most people need professional help to fill the forms them in. I actually did a training course.

Your friend works part-time in a job with reduced hours... Im sorry her home is cold, that is miserable but I also think it's frankly ridiculous that people are able to get away with working such a low number of hours.

But the point is that most kids aren’t disabled, so receiving a low rate of UC will be much more usual than a high rate.

There are 37,000 households in the UK with five children. The chances of all of those five children having a disability is practically zero.

The article is bollocks. It’s intended to stoke hatred against benefits claimants and judging by this thread, it’s working.

It’s the highest number of hours that her employer could give her, and attending college is mandatory. She has to be working toward her Level 3 TA qualification and also a maths GCSE. Without the qualifications she won’t get any better employment. Rock and a hard place.

I find that extremely surprising
My now 19 year old had acute necrotising pancreatitus when he was 16 he also doesn't have a pancreas as it was completely destroyed, hes now insulin dependent diabetic and also has to take creon with his food to digest it he doesn't meet the criteria for PIP though, his wasent due to drinking it was idiopathic
.

You need more people to pay in than receive money.
You should encourage the very rich. They spend a lot, employ people and are generally good for the economy,

This government is insane.
Reeves spares 110 council houses worth over £2m from mansion tax
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/stamp-duty/110-council-houses-worth-over-2m-but-wont-pay-mansion-tax/

What is insane about that?

If your LA house is worth over 2 million, you're in London, which means you've waited years and are in urgent need of safe, secure housing. They have no choice over what home they're offered, so why should they be punished for it?

People buying houses worth millions can always opt to buy something cheaper if the extra tax will make life hard for them.

Probably a good portion of that. Some of us only have one child because we can’t afford another despite working full time and in a professional job.

@frequency - they have waited years? Methinks not.

What I think is shocking is the figure I saw for no one working in social housing properties in London. It was a huge percentage, so not all disabled and unable to work. There is no excuse for not having a job in London. It is not Great Yarmouth fgs.

I think people are starting to get angry. My dc said that young people in his workplace (deemed necessary by even the most anti-working MNetter) are despairing. A room to rent is upwards of £800 a month. Ds’s room is the conservatory in a not great area.

Meanwhile people are getting taxpayer-funded flats in London. If you don’t intend to work, you can go and live somewhere where there is no work, imo.

I refuse to pay for the Torygraph, so I cannot read the article, but I would be very surprised if no one in social housing is working in London. I would not be surprised if most people in social housing in London are entitled to benefits, but that's down to high rent costs and low wages, not lack of will to work.

London still needs cleaners, child care workers, care home staff, shop staff, etc, and those people deserve a home.

I'm one of the 66% and don't have 3+ children. Not all benefit claimants are the same.

I dont think many peoole are getting social housing in London.

It's nuts really as it just pays for the asset of a private landlord instead.

What do you mean?

the latest figures I could find show that 38% of UC claimants are working. 15% full time. The remainder part time.

YANBU.

I am all for eradicating child poverty. But this isn’t the way to do it.

people don’t want to hear it, but there are large swathes of the population on benefits who are working the system. They don’t want to work, have no intention to ever work, they have comfortable lives with secure income and they just piss it away. And they are raising kids with no intention or incentive to work. It’s a vicious cycle. Why would kids grow up wanting to work when they see that their parents can get money handed to them just for sitting on their arse.

Yes, this is not all people on benefits. But people are deluded if they think this doesn’t happen. And it’s not a small amount of people, either.

I see them daily. I know some of them fairly well. Most are ok people, some are quite nice. But they absolutely are scamming the system.

They live in secure social housing. They claim
benefits. They have unhealthy lifestyles and all kind of health conditions, real and exaggerated for which they rake in benefits. They claim carers allowance for each other, when really they should just be caring for themselves - but of course the government doesn’t pay them for that.

The kids are growing up, applying for council houses and claiming benefits and popping out their own kids. It’s incredibly depressing and I really feel for a lot of the young people. They genuinely don’t know any different. It’s just what people in their world do.

People who rent are not doing it on purpose to claim benefits. They are people who can not afford to buy. Even if you have your rent paid, if you are renting in the private sector, you are not in secure housing.

This just isn’t true.

There was a thread on here a couple of days ago. The OP and her partner were planning on starting a family and she didn’t know whether she should buy a property now, or continue renting and buy a property later when her children had started school.

The overwhelming majority of posters advised her to continue renting because what if she or her husband had an accident and couldn’t pay the mortgage. They wouldn’t be entitled to benefits etc. It was “safer” to stay renting than to buy. Buying was more expensive. She would need to maintain her home at her own expense etc.

I’m starting to think it would be more beneficial in the long term for the Government to just give people benefits towards their mortgage given the amount of money being handed to landlords to pay off their own mortgage.

No, but people become landlords for lots of different reasons, including moving for work and renting out their place while they rent another.

The poster you replied to was clearly saying that renting out a property has an element of risk attached.