1 Million Households In Private Rented Recieve Housing Benefit.

[porca misèria]

Personally I am not too fussed as I am just grateful for having a roof over my head, but I do like to correct people when they think its very generous.

Healthy attitude there. As ever, you get the luck of the draw.

It's not you who's raking it in at our expense. It's your landlord.

(That's obviously a generalisation: I don't know about you or your landlord as individuals.)

[Chrysalis]

Healthy attitude there. As ever, you get the luck of the draw.

It's not you who's raking it in at our expense. It's your landlord.

(That's obviously a generalisation: I don't know about you or your landlord as individuals.)

understood, to me the proper solution is to stop the right to buy stuff on council properties, build more council properties and use them to house vulnerable people, The private market + housing benefit thing is getting out of control I do agree with you on that. But at the same time I think its wrong to just leave people homeless when they need shelter.

The americans and australians may be proud of stricter social welfare but they also have more people on their streets forgotten by the system homeless.

[the flying pig]

understood, to me the proper solution is to stop the right to buy stuff on council properties, build more council properties and use them to house vulnerable people, The private market + housing benefit thing is getting out of control I do agree with you on that...

That would be manifestly wrong. Magnificent, wealth-creating, free market champions such as BTL landlords are one of this economy's few success stories. Would you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

[okaycuckoo]

But at the same time I think its wrong to just leave people homeless when they need shelter.

The americans and australians may be proud of stricter social welfare but they also have more people on their streets forgotten by the system homeless.

I doubt anyone contradicts that, but ...

It is unjust to the point of perversion to have those who don't work (or receive low wages) enjoying greater incomes than lower rate taxpayers. We are through the looking glass.

[wren]

But at the same time I think its wrong to just leave people homeless when they need shelter.

The americans and australians may be proud of stricter social welfare but they also have more people on their streets forgotten by the system homeless.

For the record, I'm not against social security benefits for people really in need, so long as they are within reason.

However, some question the size of some of the benefits.

[Fergie]

Some might ask themselves: "Why work? Why effing bother to work?"

If you really think you're worse off working than you would be on benefits, you should check if you're entitled to working tax credit, as the whole point of that was to end the benefits trap so no one is worse off working than on benefits.

Personally, I think several things need to change to get the huge sums the taxpayer is shelling out down: housing needs to be substantially cheaper, for everyone. And employers need to be forced to shoulder the burden if what they're paying makes people worse off than they would be on benefits. But the argument that I'd be better off on benefits is a generally a fairly igorant comment, made by people who earn vastly more than either benefits or minimum wage.

[porca misèria]

If you really think you're worse off working than you would be on benefits, you should check if you're entitled to working tax credit, as the whole point of that was to end the benefits trap so no one is worse off working than on benefits.

Personally, I think several things need to change to get the huge sums the taxpayer is shelling out down: housing needs to be substantially cheaper, for everyone. And employers need to be forced to shoulder the burden if what they're paying makes people worse off than they would be on benefits. But the argument that I'd be better off on benefits is a generally a fairly igorant comment, made by people who earn vastly more than either benefits or minimum wage.

So what has changed since 2002/3[1], when I was very, very much worse off than on benefits[2]?

[1] Or really 2000-2004, but I had savings. And in 2004 I made about £7k, so felt rich despite my back-of-an-envelope benefits calculation[2] coming to rather more at £8k.

[2] Assuming benefits of 50+/week + rent (1-bed flat) + council tax (Band A) + perks such as free NHS

[Dubai]

Found at: http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2010/01/anjem-choudry.html

Is this true? Does the state really give more to new immigrants than it does to Soldiers in the armed forces? They've got it wrong, surely.....

[kara gee]

Is that all?

60 a week won't get you anything other than a room in a shared house

I mis-read it. £60 pw is for social housing not private rented. Still trying to find a figure for that.

[Guest CrashTestDummy]

I mis-read it. £60 pw is for social housing not private rented. Still trying to find a figure for that.

Do a search on LHA rates, type in a postcode and you'll see the rates for any given area.

[Chrysalis]

For the record, I'm not against social security benefits for people really in need, so long as they are within reason.

However, some question the size of some of the benefits.

I have come into some luck finally (I hope)

friend of mine who owns a business remembered the skills I have learnt and may employ me full time long term working from home, offered me what I consider a very good wage initially but would have had to relocate and somehow get to office premises, I sacrificed about 25% of the salary so I can work from home, he is coming to see me monday to sort it out.

He asked me why I hate been on incapacity benefit and I told him what I told you guys here I just hate the stigma and want to earn my own living, he understood. I think he was shocked I want to work I dont know.

On the subject at hand, do I think benefits are too generous.

I think child related benefits are without a doubt. Of course I have no children so it is all too easy for me to say that. My sister has asked me do I think its fair that incapacity benefit is higher than jobseekers allowance, I told her my opinion is jobseekers allowance is deliberatly set too low to encourage people to find work and as its only supposed to be a short term benefit, whilst incapacity benefit can be a long term benefit. That is my own reasoning justifiying the higher amount, however I cannot think why they have the age addition bonus, although I benefit from it I will admit it doesnt make sense. To me the mobility part of disability living allowance should be something cut before incapacity benefit, it is not counted as income, it can be claimed whilst you work and it can be claimed on top of incapacity benefit. It seems to be a duplicate benefit. People claiming DLA will typically have another income. People claiming IB will typically not have another income (unless its DLA).

Regards to housing benefit and LHA the problem I see is the drop off in support when you find employment is too sharp, someone on £150 a week on benefits will get more housing support costs than someone on £150 from employment, that is fundametally wrong. If the support is kept to the same sort of level with a gradual drop off as salary increases then taking employment should always be more rewarding than benefits.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Chrysalis

[Guest CrashTestDummy]

I have come into some luck finally (I hope)

friend of mine who owns a business remembered the skills I have learnt and may employ me full time long term working from home, offered me what I consider a very good wage initially but would have had to relocate and somehow get to office premises, I sacrificed about 25% of the salary so I can work from home, he is coming to see me monday to sort it out.

That sounds like great news!. I'm not sure if you are aware, but there is some type of scheme that will transport you to and from work. I once interviewed a guy who was in a wheelchair and he was going to use this service to get to and from work. I'm not sure how you find out about it, but it is out there. Hope that helps. Good luck with the new job! I hope it works out for you.

[SarahBell]

Do a search on LHA rates, type in a postcode and you'll see the rates for any given area.

It's done by area and date too so you could make a widget that steals the data and get a full set of data if you wanted (and had the techie skills)

[moesasji]

It's done by area and date too so you could make a widget that steals the data and get a full set of data if you wanted (and had the techie skills)

Doing this makes one really, really depressed to be honest (as it is GBP 700 for 3-bedroom and GBP 950 for a 4-bedroom house in my area). So rents that are difficult to afford when working unless you have a very high house-hold income....

[winkie]

Most agree that public sector spending and borrowing has to be reduced.....could councils refusing to pay high rents be a good start, landlords could always then try to see what they could get in the private sector they might be disappointed.

BTL might not be such a good investment after all.

[wren]

I have come into some luck finally (I hope)

friend of mine who owns a business remembered the skills I have learnt and may employ me full time long term working from home, offered me what I consider a very good wage initially but would have had to relocate and somehow get to office premises, I sacrificed about 25% of the salary so I can work from home, he is coming to see me monday to sort it out.

He asked me why I hate been on incapacity benefit and I told him what I told you guys here I just hate the stigma and want to earn my own living, he understood. I think he was shocked I want to work I dont know.

Good luck with trying to get something suitable.

As I said I'm not against benefits for people who really need them, so I see no stigma in such genuine cases.

My original comment was reflecting common opinions, and it does seem that sometimes the housing benefits etc. are just too generous. Hence the question "why work?" although it depends on individual circumstances.

On the subject at hand, do I think benefits are too generous.

Regards to housing benefit and LHA the problem I see is the drop off in support when you find employment is too sharp, someone on £150 a week on benefits will get more housing support costs than someone on £150 from employment, that is fundametally wrong. If the support is kept to the same sort of level with a gradual drop off as salary increases then taking employment should always be more rewarding than benefits.

Something is wrong with the system when people lose out financially because of working.

[goldbug9999]

The problem is that those whose housing is substantially subsidised by the government seem to out number those of us who aren't:

People on HB + people getting mortgage help + BTL landlords + home-owners benefiting from the consequent price inflation.

Someone like me who is renting and cash-positive is subsidising the system 3 ways: 1) higher rents 2) loss of interest on savings 3) higher taxation.

If I was out of work then I would have to use up my substantial savings before I could get any benefits, surely it would be fair if home owners were forced to sell and live of the released capital before being eligible for benefits ?.

[Stars]

Regards to housing benefit and LHA the problem I see is the drop off in support when you find employment is too sharp, someone on £150 a week on benefits will get more housing support costs than someone on £150 from employment, that is fundametally wrong. If the support is kept to the same sort of level with a gradual drop off as salary increases then taking employment should always be more rewarding than benefits.

We can't afford to do that

Let me put this more broadly and more directly; the uk can't afford the price of real estate in the uk (no matter what we do).

Once you twig the problem isn't really benefits or wages but real estate, the whole issue starts to untangle and make a lot more sense.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Stars

[wren]

The problem is that those whose housing is substantially subsidised by the government seem to out number those of us who aren't:

People on HB + people getting mortgage help + BTL landlords + home-owners benefiting from the consequent price inflation.

Someone like me who is renting and cash-positive is subsidising the system 3 ways: 1) higher rents 2) loss of interest on savings 3) higher taxation.

...

In a way you're paying to make yourself poorer.

This is the annoying thing.

[Stars]

In a way you're paying to make yourself poorer.

This is the annoying thing.

Yes - real estate, because it physically encompasses everything, sets up a prisoner's dilemma in the economy with no choice to play or not.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Stars

[Soton]

This is out of control as the councils pay more and more for those on housing hand outs. I know of many people who have chosen to do the following.

Claim about £650 per month for a 2 bed flat or £750 for a three bed house from a private landlord , perhaps top up slightly by £25-£50 a month to live in amore luxurious surrounding.

Then rent out 1 or two rooms to top up and make some cash while working cash in hand.

This is going on everywhere and is recognised as the norm by economic migrants.

With the council hand out and the top ups landlords can get over and above market rents further pushing out those paying into the system so they have to rent lower quality properties than those on hand outs

This is going to be on the increase as councils will be providing more and more affordable housing by releasing their own land for development as private developers cannot build to make a profit.

Councils are now hand in hand with affordable providers who are mainly ex council workers and together they will push rents up for hard working tax paying individuals while they take large salaries from it all while parading under the banner of a charitable affordable housing provider.

[Fergie]

So what has changed since 2002/3[1], when I was very, very much worse off than on benefits[2]?

[1] Or really 2000-2004, but I had savings. And in 2004 I made about £7k, so felt rich despite my back-of-an-envelope benefits calculation[2] coming to rather more at £8k.

Working tax credit is designed so you're pretty much always better off working. It doesn't work every single time, but most times. If you were earning only 7K, for example, you'd get pretty much full WTC - £1,890 for a single person, £1,860 for a second adult or if you're a lone parent, more on top of that if you're disabled (£2,530), £775 extra if you're working over 30 hours. And if you've got kids it's something like £2770 for each child on top of that. Plus you're often still entitled to help with council tax and housing. It tapers off when you start earning more than about £7K, but most people still seem to get something up to about £15K.

To me, it's this issue of working people on low incomes needing to be topped up that's the really big problem in the UK. If wages are too low to live on, then either wages are too low period, or the cost of living is too high. The government subsidising employers and landlords through paying huge amounts of our taxes to working people is a scandal. Also the housing policies, where private landlords essentially set the price the taxpayer pays, and prices out people on low wages.

It's a totally screwed version of a free market

Edited January 9, 2010 by Fergie

[winkie]

Working tax credit is designed so you're pretty much always better off working. It doesn't work every single time, but most times. If you were earning only 7K, for example, you'd get pretty much full WTC - £1,890 for a single person, £1,860 for a second adult or if you're a lone parent, more on top of that if you're disabled (£2,530), £775 extra if you're working over 30 hours. And if you've got kids it's something like £2770 for each child on top of that. Plus you're often still entitled to help with council tax and housing. It tapers off when you start earning more than about £7K, but most people still seem to get something up to about £15K.

To me, it's this issue of working people on low incomes needing to be topped up that's the really big problem in the UK. If wages are too low to live on, then either wages are too low period, or the cost of living is too high. The government subsidising employers and landlords through paying huge amounts of our taxes to working people is a scandal. Also the housing policies, where private landlords essentially set the price the taxpayer pays, and prices out people on low wages.

It's a totally screwed version of a free market

Well said Fergie.

[Fergie]

I should say, I don't have a clue what the answer is, as a truly free market simply sees masses of people starving or on the street.

[winkie]

I should say, I don't have a clue what the answer is, as a truly free market simply sees masses of people starving or on the street.

If the cost of housing was not so high, most I would say could live an adequate lifestyle on £15 to £20K.