I recently put up a post asking about the pros and cons of taking on a tenant on benefits.

[shlomo]

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1447111702109702?sorting_setting=RECENT_ACTIVITY

William Douglas

Sdropnteso37mct302f1091c8mc36574a7m1tm19l442hm4hi1320ha820i1  · 

 

I recently put up a post asking about the pros and cons of taking on a tenant on benefits. I have decided to take them on and these are the numbers:

Single parent, 1 child.

Rent £1,750/month

Tenants income: £1,000 per month from a part time job.

LHA housing benefit: £1,400/month

Income support: £800/month.

Tenants net monthly income is therefore £3,200 with no tax to pay.

This is equivalent to a £51,000 per year salary.

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Joshua Dooley

Blame the housing market/system not someone who's trying to look after herself and her child. And take the extortionate rent instead of being sly and reprimanding her for it.

Leslie Pendlebury-Bowe 父

LHA of 1400 is very high indeed. But I was recently offered special amount for one of my tenants. It does seem that authorities are bending the rules.

I turned them down.

I wish somebody had given me £2200 a month help.

Niki Hopkins

F****ing disgusting….. not a wonder being on benefits is a career choice these days!

Hana El-Ahmar

Wow. I’m a junior doctor and I don’t make that 

Helena Ellis

Why am I working 16 hours a day,how come HB is so high my tenants max claim is £80 a week for the area.So wrong

[NoHPCinTheUK]

My wife is only making £500 more than the sum of all these benefits in a full time job. 
 

maybe worth having a child, go for the fraudulent divorce route and move somewhere cheaper. 
 

My net income is around £300 more than the tenants net salary here quoted. I pay 40% taxes also. 
 

Working doesn’t pay. The government’s rules simply make the natural course of life impossible to pursue. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by NoHPCinTheUK

[Casual-observer]

16 minutes ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

My wife is only making £500 more than the sum of all these benefits in a full time job. 
 

maybe worth having a child, go for the fraudulent divorce route and move somewhere cheaper. 
 

My net income is around £300 more than the tenants net salary here quoted. I pay 40% taxes also. 
 

Working doesn’t pay. The government’s rules simply make the natural course of life impossible to pursue. 

The tax system is there to keep the proles down and the old money protected. 

The way to get ahead in the UK is to keep your wealth away from PAYE which is very hard to do when you aren't born into money. 

 

[winkie]

If being on benefits was so lucrative why don't more do it?   

Easy to say it is easy, when it is not a life of security or satisfaction.......a doctor as can others can increase their grades and can eventually earn better higher salary increments.....improve their lot.......someone on benefits is reliant on what they are given, treading water all their lives, kids grow up benefits reduce......they can well get much poorer over time, no private pension, no own home, told what they can live in, no savings......always under the control of the state.

[bartelbe]

6 minutes ago, winkie said:

If being on benefits was so lucrative why don't more do it?   

Easy to say it is easy, when it is not a life of security or satisfaction.......a doctor as can others can increase their grades and can eventually earn better higher salary increments.....improve their lot.......someone on benefits is reliant on what they are given, treading water all their lives, kids grow up benefits reduce......they can well get much poorer over time, no private pension, no own home, told what they can live in, no savings......always under the control of the state.

You're middle class aren't you? Probably read the Guardian?

Sure if you can get a graduate job, claiming benefits would be nuts but a large percentage of jobs barely pay the bills. With little hope of promotion and as for salary increments, not if you're paid a wage. 

When you compare benefits to those jobs, they aint so bad. 

[winkie]

6 minutes ago, bartelbe said:

You're middle class aren't you? Probably read the Guardian?

Sure if you can get a graduate job, claiming benefits would be nuts but a large percentage of jobs barely pay the bills. With little hope of promotion and as for salary increments, not if you're paid a wage. 

When you compare benefits to those jobs, they aint so bad. 

Never bought the guardian in my life......used to read the daily sketch that was replaced by the mail......don't buy it either now.......all news has its biases.....so read and listen to a mixture, British, European and American.....

[spyguy]

People on benefits should have never been let loose in the PRS.

Social housing should be cheap, available and basic.

And conditional on behaviour and holding down a job and sending kids to school.

If you are going to have HB then it needs to be capped at 1/3 of the local median wage.

PRS is so high as LHA has driven it up.

LHA needs cutting to match local wages.

Cash benefits as a whole need capping at 3/4 of NMW. Max.

The cretinous UK non-time limited, non contribution welfare system is acting as the big pull for the all the dingy sailors.

 

 

[Insane]

35 minutes ago, winkie said:

If being on benefits was so lucrative why don't more do it?   

Well there are plenty of people doing it. We don't know the figures as in this case like many others the person in question is receiving in work benefits. She won't show up as unemployed or on the sick. I don't know how you would find out how many are living like this. 

For single men or older woman they cannot produce a child become a single parent and join this particular gravy train. 

 

[Bob8]

33 minutes ago, bartelbe said:

You're middle class aren't you? Probably read the Guardian?

Sure if you can get a graduate job, claiming benefits would be nuts but a large percentage of jobs barely pay the bills. With little hope of promotion and as for salary increments, not if you're paid a wage. 

When you compare benefits to those jobs, they aint so bad. 

Again, this goes to the assumption that poor people are getting all the money. Salaries are stagnent in the UK have have been for a while. Meanwhile, natioal wealth has continued to increase.

[spyguy]

7 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Again, this goes to the assumption that poor people are getting all the money. Salaries are stagnent in the UK have have been for a while. Meanwhile, natioal wealth has continued to increase.

National lwealth is a net thing.

Take out national debt and the rapidly rising IR bill and youll find national wealth has barely shifted in 20y.

 

 

[winkie]

27 minutes ago, Insane said:

Well there are plenty of people doing it. We don't know the figures as in this case like many others the person in question is receiving in work benefits. She won't show up as unemployed or on the sick. I don't know how you would find out how many are living like this. 

For single men or older woman they cannot produce a child become a single parent and join this particular gravy train. 

 

So you are saying a child is the gateway to an easy life?.......I don't think you know what sacrifices good people make for their children........these innocent children are our future, invest in them, by being good parents to them, good mentors and guides. 

[Insane]

6 minutes ago, winkie said:

So you are saying a child is the gateway to an easy life?.......I don't think you know what sacrifices good people make for their children........these innocent children are our future, invest in them, by being good parents to them, good mentors and guides

What I am saying is the following. 

I answered your post where you said if it is so good why are more people not doing it.

1. I said we don't know how many people are doing it.

2. Many people cannot do the same as the woman in this instance as they cannot produce the child. 

3. Whether someone is or is not saying the a child is the gateway to an easy life , in this instance it is the reason the woman is receiving all the money. 

[poohbear]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

People on benefits should have never been let loose in the PRS.

Social housing should be cheap, available and basic.

And conditional on behaviour and holding down a job and sending kids to school.

If you are going to have HB then it needs to be capped at 1/3 of the local median wage.

PRS is so high as LHA has driven it up.

LHA needs cutting to match local wages.

Cash benefits as a whole need capping at 3/4 of NMW. Max.

The cretinous UK non-time limited, non contribution welfare system is acting as the big pull for the all the dingy sailors.

 

 

If only that were true sadly.

Conditional on behaviour and holding down a job.Job not necessary, benefits will cover it.The only time I saw tendency being under threat was during the time of the London 2011 riots.Now people can behave basically however they want and the councils are turning a blind eye, even when approached making it as difficult as possible and only stepping in when forced to.

The average Jo really isn’t aware of the massive figures paid as LHA, obviously not all areas and the rather large in the billions of pounds paid in this benefit.

Thats why I proposed a universal income of £1000 for everyone at age 18, but that’s your lot, no more for housing or children.You want more you go out and work for it.You want housing and children you pay for it.Would crash the cost of housing when the tax payer isn’t paying for everyone else’s housing, but comes directly out of peoples pockets.

[winkie]

39 minutes ago, Insane said:

What I am saying is the following. 

I answered your post where you said if it is so good why are more people not doing it.

1. I said we don't know how many people are doing it.

2. Many people cannot do the same as the woman in this instance as they cannot produce the child. 

3. Whether someone is or is not saying the a child is the gateway to an easy life , in this instance it is the reason the woman is receiving all the money. 

The children are receiving the money, in some cases because the man who gifted that child to the woman is not prepared to, or is unable to, or not interested in supporting their child.....so the state pays because they would want all children to have a roof over their heads and food in their belly, kids can't choose their parents....what are you suggesting that the kids are taken from the parents and put into a home? That would not be good for them or the country and children's homes and institutions are very costly .....you want children to sleep on the streets?

[Insane]

53 minutes ago, winkie said:

The children are receiving the money, in some cases because the man who gifted that child to the woman is not prepared to, or is unable to, or not interested in supporting their child.....so the state pays because they would want all children to have a roof over their heads and food in their belly, kids can't choose their parents....what are you suggesting that the kids are taken from the parents and put into a home? That would not be good for them or the country and children's homes and institutions are very costly .....you want children to sleep on the streets?

I am suggesting nothing. I was simply pointing out to you why not everyone is doing what this woman is doing after you posed the question asking why they wern't. I was also pointing out to you after you stated that it was not easy to bring up a child that the money coming in was due to the child. Quite simple.

Again not suggesting anything however they once did an in-depth survey of what European Countries paid in Benefits to single mothers and how many each country had. Right down the line from the top to the bottom the countries who gave the most had the most the countries like Italy who gave next to nothing had almost none. I wonder if there is any pattern? 

There is a current thread on here at the moment taking about having children now being a luxury. I think they mean couples who stand on their own two feet not being able to afford children. Have you ever thought that taking from those couples and giving the money to single parents might be part of the reason the couples are having less children while single parent households have flourished? If your all for the Children why not have the backs of those couples as much as you do the single mothers? 

[clarkey]

I don’t earn much more than that and pay 40% tax. To be fair the tennant isn’t receiving 51k in their hand the largest chunk of taxpayer cash is going out as rent so the btl letters are doing well However if they have a part time income of £1k, so what are they getting £800 plus another £1400 housing paid for? That’s the real problem, the rents are inflated to match the income from the taxpayer 

[AThirdWay]

3 hours ago, bartelbe said:

You're middle class aren't you? Probably read the Guardian?

Sure if you can get a graduate job, claiming benefits would be nuts but a large percentage of jobs barely pay the bills. With little hope of promotion and as for salary increments, not if you're paid a wage. 

When you compare benefits to those jobs, they aint so bad. 

You're lower class, aren't you? Prolly read the Sun? 😂

Honestly, suckers for a bs story one and all!

[Si1]

I wonder how much the landlords house has gone up in value as a result of regressive govt intervention in the housing market and financial system?

[Si1]

3 hours ago, Casual-observer said:

The tax system is there to keep the proles down and the old money protected. 

The way to get ahead in the UK is to keep your wealth away from PAYE which is very hard to do when you aren't born into money. 

 

Indeed. Blame the system. Not the players 

[14stFlyer]

1 minute ago, Si1 said:

Blame the system. Not the players

Am I not allowed to apportion blame to both?   People still have the opportunity to behave in an ethical way in our society.  It just “costs them” to do so.  

[Si1]

Just now, 14stFlyer said:

Am I not allowed to apportion blame to both?   People still have the opportunity to behave in an ethical way in our society.  It just “costs them” to do so.  

Well yeah. But spotting the ethical behaviour is tricky. This lady on benefits is more likely to lead to useful change than a middle class wage slave. Who's upholding the system the most?

[Rolypoly]

Government that needs to borrow £Billions a month to pay its way whilst running TV advertising campaign encouraging those who believe they might be entitled to more financial support to get in touch.

Not a case of people scamming the system anymore, this is the system seeking you, why wouldn’t you take the chance at some free money, doubt they turn many away.

[winkie]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

I am suggesting nothing. I was simply pointing out to you why not everyone is doing what this woman is doing after you posed the question asking why they wern't. I was also pointing out to you after you stated that it was not easy to bring up a child that the money coming in was due to the child. Quite simple.

Again not suggesting anything however they once did an in-depth survey of what European Countries paid in Benefits to single mothers and how many each country had. Right down the line from the top to the bottom the countries who gave the most had the most the countries like Italy who gave next to nothing had almost none. I wonder if there is any pattern? 

There is a current thread on here at the moment taking about having children now being a luxury. I think they mean couples who stand on their own two feet not being able to afford children. Have you ever thought that taking from those couples and giving the money to single parents might be part of the reason the couples are having less children while single parent households have flourished? If your all for the Children why not have the backs of those couples as much as you do the single mothers? 

Plenty of benefits being paid to single fathers who gave up their career to care for their children......plenty of fathers are the home makers whilst their higher paid mothers continue their career......this isn't a sexist thing or should it be.....it is what is best for the children in the circumstances they find themselves........they grow up quickly and if well raised will pay back many fold into society.....vowing sometimes to be more responsible than their parents might have been, or living up to their family values.....kids don't mind sharing a bedroom or even sleeping on the sofa, what they want is love, security, peace and comfort from their parents......it is not a war about money.......children love both parents equally, it is only the selfish parents that create division and animosity....the kids are number one.....worth more and deserve more than childish parents.....not about them, those who have failed themselves, others and their kids.....Often failed kids go on to fail society.

 

 

......break the pattern, else history may well repeat itself.

[bartelbe]

2 hours ago, AThirdWay said:

You're lower class, aren't you? Prolly read the Sun? 😂

Honestly, suckers for a bs story one and all!

Sorry I offended you Ma lord. Us plebs don't read the Sun we look at the pretty pictures.

Would you like me to get your gun Ma Lord so you can join todays hunt?

Doffs cap, backs slowly out of room.

[cbathpc]

6 hours ago, winkie said:

If being on benefits was so lucrative why don't more do it?   

Easy to say it is easy, when it is not a life of security or satisfaction.......a doctor as can others can increase their grades and can eventually earn better higher salary increments.....improve their lot.......someone on benefits is reliant on what they are given, treading water all their lives, kids grow up benefits reduce......they can well get much poorer over time, no private pension, no own home, told what they can live in, no savings......always under the control of the state.

• 9.9 million were of Working Age, 31% of whom were claiming more than one benefit

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2021/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2021#:~:text=Of whom%3A,claiming more than one benefit

30% of people are..