Is receiving £30k pa on benefits “living in poverty”?!

[ChumpWizard]

Amol Rajan BBC R4 Today was in Colchester this week. Great interviews but one thing had me wondering.

Is receiving c£30,000 pa on benefits “living in poverty”? That’s the equivalent of a FT job earning c£40-£42k Pa.

She gets a job? From the statement some of the children she had were born during her unemployment. If she's healthy enough to go through pregnancies and the hard work of caring for babies, then she's healthy enough to get a job.

Imo triple lock

Without more information from OP this thread is just rage bait.

That was not the point I was making.
Home owners get time limited help with the interest, and it is a loan.
All good if you are able to work and get a new job soon. Not so much if you have found yourself disabled and unable to work. People can and do lose their homes.

But it is ok for benefits to pay the mortgages of private landlords via housing benefit?

No we don’t all get child benefit, many have to pay it back

Make sterilisation a condition of receiving benefits.

Why is the Government so insistent on private homebuyers and ignoring the need for rental?

short term fixes rather than long term planning

It’s based on outgoings I think. If it’s for a couple that’s £15k Pa take home pay each.

it depends how much they have leftover after utility bills and food.

I remember an article saying the Queen was technically in fuel poverty because of the high cost of heating Buckingham palace which took most of her allowance

With a disabled DH and 6 kids with SN, where would she find the time or energy to work?

Why is that worse than the public purse paying for landlords’ mortgages?

State pension is less than half of 30k

It is less than 13k per year

I wondered if this included housing costs. If it does, it’s not a lot for a family of eight.

Yikes, I can imagine the work coach at the Job Centre bringing that one up. Is this just for women?

Keep that in your head, eh? Along with the dog hating.

@XenoBitch well you said they get shafted. we shouldn’t pay for someone else’s assets.

But it is ok for benefits to pay the mortgages of private landlords via housing benefit?

I don’t think it’s ok, why would you think that?

If’s politically interesting, because of course many people come down on the side of “the state shouldn’t pay for anyone to have an asset for free”: which is at surface level a reasonable stance. A number of countries have welfare states which do provide welfare for mortgage payments: the US, for all the outside belief that their welfare system is parsimonious, is one of them, alongside several European countries, and when you look at the actual data there are clear social benefits to it in terms of people who are in secure, stable, long-term housing being better placed to make good decisions about the rest of their lives. Somebody’s asset is being paid off regardless of whether welfare is provided for mortgage or rent: in the latter case, it’s a landlord who is building assets from taxpayers, without the same positives which arise out of welfare directly to homeowners.

What’s the relevance? A pensioner is unlikely to be living in similar financial circumstances to a family on 30k of benefits.

But we are paying for private landlord's mortgages. That is how the system is. And I never said I agreed with it.

But it is how it is because of the huge lack of social housing.

State pension is for one person.
How many people was the 30k between?

All six children and the husband have disabilities.

@AlcoholicAntibiotic so two wrongs make a right? Unfortunately there isn’t enough social housing so private landlords are needed.

And often the amount included in a UC assessment for rent is a lot less than the actual, or average, rent.

That means that some of the standard allowance has to go on rent, leaving less for bills and food.

Was she unemployed i.e. claiming benefit? Or just a mum at home looking after her children. We don't know when she had the children or when her husband became unable to work due to his disability.

This is the trouble with having barely any facts.

OP has dropped rage bait and fucked off.

So you prefer the government to subsidise people using property for investment rather than a home.

Wow,

The landlord is providing a service which is being paid for by the tenant. How that tenant comes by the money has nothing to do with the landlord

Yep. If I was looking to rent a one bedroom place where I live, and was getting UC towards rent... the amount I would get would still be £150-£200 short each month.