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

[bartelbe]

5 hours 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.

I am well aware that wages are stagnant and we are being shafted but what the Guardian types fail to grasp is how toxic benefits have become.

The great postwar Labour government, that established much of the welfare state, understood this. They deliberately set benefits so they would be uncomfortable and those who were in work were better off. Unless you're going to claim Clement Attlee was a red tory?

[Casual-observer]

2 hours ago, Si1 said:

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?

Is she? 

In what way? 

[gp_]

4 hours 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?

They are pretty much going down that route.

Single parents are under a lot of pressure to work rather than live off benefits. This means they will use childcare, which will be heavily subsidised. So the state pays a lot of money to get someone to make a small economic contribution instead of letting them look after their children. The kids are worse off (in childcare instead of with a parent).

It also means poor, especially single parents,people cannot home educate (research shows kids are better off HE, and yes, even if parents are not well educated, they do better than in school - partly because they are the ones who go to crap schools otherwise).

All of this makes society a bit worse off in the short term, and a lot worse off in the long term.

The point is just to make people work. You see the same thing in the cross party, cross all media, outrage at people retiring early.Work is a moral end in itself. You live to work, rather than working to live. Working is the secular equivalent of keeping the sabbath - except you do it five days a week instead of one.

Edited March 26, 2023 by gp_

[winkie]

31 minutes ago, cbathpc said:

• 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..

Could that be because employers are not paying a living wage in the area where they want people to work?......big business and their profits being subsidised by the tax payers......

If living costs were less, tax payers wouldn't have to fork out so much ........ we blame foreign workers for pulling wages down, how about blaming the high price of putting a roof over our heads, for the need for extra benefits to live.......who could live solely on a state pension? Even worse predicament if a lifetime renter.......so many require state topups and we put up with it!........ unbelievable, but believable.

[Casual-observer]

5 minutes ago, winkie said:

Could that be because employers are not paying a living wage in the area where they want people to work?......big business and their profits being subsidised by the tax payers......

If living costs were less, tax payers wouldn't have to fork out so much ........ we blame foreign workers for pulling wages down, how about blaming the high price of putting a roof over our heads, for the need for extra benefits to live.......who could live solely on a state pension? Even worse predicament if a lifetime renter.......so many require state topups and we put up with it!........ unbelievable, but believable.

Disagree, the problem is partly the funding of vastly expensive vanity welfare systems which create an artificial floor on pricing. The welfare state today in it's present form is a mere vote buying exercise namely towards buying female votes. 

No one can compete against a system of seizing tax from the productive and throwing it where they want. Fundamentally you can't replace the family unit cheaply, the alternative is the welfare state morphed into floating the myth that women can be single mothers whom are predominantly the main beneficiary of the welfare state. 

Today it would be electoral suicide for anyone to openly to try and roll it back, it's has to collapse at this point.  

Edited March 26, 2023 by Casual-observer

[winkie]

11 minutes ago, gp_ said:

They are pretty much going down that route.

Single parents are under a lot of pressure to work rather than live off benefits. This means they will use childcare, which will be heavily subsidised. So the state pays a lot of money to get someone to make a small economic contribution instead of letting them look after their children. The kids are worse off (in childcare instead of with a parent).

It also means poor, especially single parents,people cannot home educate (research shows kids are better off HE, and yes, even if parents are not well educated, they do better than in school - partly because they are the ones who go to crap schools otherwise).

All of this makes society a bit worse off in the short term, and a lot worse off in the long term.

The point is just to make people work. You see the same thing in the cross party, cross all media, outrage at people retiring early.Work is a moral end in itself. You live to work, rather than working to live. Working is the secular equivalent of keeping the sabbath - except you do it five days a week instead of one.

Not looking very good at the moment is it.......But all governments now are short-term leaders.....13 years and nothing has been done........low hanging fruit take the biggest hit....paye, whilst unearned income or the high income earners get a reprieve, reducing capital gains tax for those with capital.....40% tax relief on pensions for those that get paid that much to make use of it......and avoiding IT because they can........making the rules/policies to benefit themselves so it seems.....tell me I am wrong.

 

[winkie]

6 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Disagree, the problem is partly the funding of vastly expensive vanity welfare systems which create an artificial floor on pricing. The welfare state today in it's present form is a mere vote buying exercise namely towards buying female votes. 

No one can compete against a system of seizing tax from the productive and throwing it where they want. Fundamentally you can't replace the family unit cheaply, the alternative is the welfare state morphed into floating the myth that women can be single mothers whom are predominantly the main beneficiary of the welfare state. 

Today it would be electoral suicide for anyone to openly to try and roll it back, it's has to collapse at this point.  

Are you feeling hard done by.......not really interested in what others have got if got it legally........it is the lack of opportunities and hope for many here and now in this country....when benefits and or crime is the only road available to them.....poor parenting, poor education, poor occupational training.......lack of youth clubs, sports clubs, lack of society support systems........sad state of affairs, we all end up paying for it in the end.

[Casual-observer]

24 minutes ago, gp_ said:

They are pretty much going down that route.

Single parents are under a lot of pressure to work rather than live off benefits. This means they will use childcare, which will be heavily subsidised. So the state pays a lot of money to get someone to make a small economic contribution instead of letting them look after their children. The kids are worse off (in childcare instead of with a parent).

It also means poor, especially single parents,people cannot home educate (research shows kids are better off HE, and yes, even if parents are not well educated, they do better than in school - partly because they are the ones who go to crap schools otherwise).

All of this makes society a bit worse off in the short term, and a lot worse off in the long term.

The point is just to make people work. You see the same thing in the cross party, cross all media, outrage at people retiring early.Work is a moral end in itself. You live to work, rather than working to live. Working is the secular equivalent of keeping the sabbath - except you do it five days a week instead of one.

No I disagree. 

What's really happening is the end of the trial that lone parenting is sustainable, it isn't. 

Eventually the money runs out and that's the territory we are entering. Apparently a quarter of family homes are now single parent and the money just isn't there, there's just no equivalent replacement for both parents supporting the kids in the same household.  

It's never been manageable throughout human history, the welfare state is a relatively new concept in that context and it's reached it's peak where single parents can outsource their costs. 

[HousePriceTooHigh]

i find the landlords complaining about this ironic, considering that ultimately it means that the state is paying their mortgage for them.

[Casual-observer]

2 minutes ago, winkie said:

Are you feeling hard done by.......not really interested in what others have got if got it legally........it is the lack of opportunities and hope for many here and now in this country....when benefits and or crime is the only road available to them.....poor parenting, poor education, poor occupational training.......lack of youth clubs, sports clubs, lack of society support systems........sad state of affairs, we all end up paying for it in the end.

Nope, I was raised by two parents and that's frankly the only healthy route any society can prop up. 

No society can survive between a quarter to a third of family homes being single parent....it's the end of the road and people have got to call this out.  No society can forever bailout these volumes of single parents. 

[Bob8]

56 minutes ago, bartelbe said:

I am well aware that wages are stagnant and we are being shafted but what the Guardian types fail to grasp is how toxic benefits have become.

The great postwar Labour government, that established much of the welfare state, understood this. They deliberately set benefits so they would be uncomfortable and those who were in work were better off. Unless you're going to claim Clement Attlee was a red tory?

I think the issue is that working people are increasingly worse off, and they are falling to the level of people below them (i.e. relying on benefits).

Typically, we do not see many people with a few millions quietly in the bank, or are not aware of them. We are aware of falling closer to people on benefits.

I would say that my Grandad was hugely better off on benefits and in his council house. Suddenly, he was in a house with a fluch toilet for his family and was often on the dole. Some of his kids went to University (paid by the state).

There is a difference in that we see men like my Grandad as a goodie. Increasingly, we see coverage of the new benefit claimants as more foreigner, darker (frankly) and less like us.

[winkie]

4 minutes ago, HousePriceTooHigh said:

i find the landlords complaining about this ironic, considering that ultimately it means that the state is paying their mortgage for them.

We are all paying their mortgage for them......and if not got a mortgage their unearned lifestyle for them.

Then you wonder why few now bother to work......they don't need to work, they can stay in bed all day and collect the dividends.......living off property wealth, why work?

....unless worth it........do the math.

[Si1]

6 minutes ago, HousePriceTooHigh said:

i find the landlords complaining about this ironic, considering that ultimately it means that the state is paying their mortgage for them.

...and indirectly propping up house prices for the middle classes too 

[winkie]

4 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Nope, I was raised by two parents and that's frankly the only healthy route any society can prop up. 

No society can survive between a quarter to a third of family homes being single parent....it's the end of the road and people have got to call this out.  No society can forever bailout these volumes of single parents. 

There is no perfect life or perfect person.......do the best you can honestly and ethically with the cards dealt to you, don't condemn others unless you have walked in their shoes.

[Casual-observer]

18 minutes ago, winkie said:

There is no perfect life or perfect person.......do the best you can honestly and ethically with the cards dealt to you, don't condemn others unless you have walked in their shoes.

Financial reality trumps all. There's a world of difference between offering basic survival and what the welfare state today is doing which is robbing off others to prop up single parent lifestyles. 

 

[winkie]

8 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Financial reality trumps all. There's a world of difference between offering basic survival and what the welfare state today is doing which is robbing off others to prop up single parent lifestyles. 

 

Every single mother has a single father.......

[Casual-observer]

3 minutes ago, winkie said:

Every single mother has a single father.......

Which doesn't negate the point. The historical answer to this was marriage. 

[shlomo]

1 hour ago, Casual-observer said:

 

Eventually the money runs out and that's the territory we are entering.

Why do you say this, I understand the importance of having two parents and the dynamic relationship of 2 different genders, are you saying the state will run out of money?

[no_dependent4663]

16 hours ago, shlomo said:

 

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

£3200 pm, what the actual ******. Why even work, honestly? That's almost twice the national average and a salary I had to bust my ass and play too many games to get to. Could have just sat on my ass and played video games.

What a joke.

 

At least I know there is a bloody good safety net waiting for me if I ever lose the job.

[no_dependent4663]

15 hours 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.

An important point, as much as people on this site love to complain about benefits and immigrants the real issue will always be all the money in the caymans, jersey, etc

More is stolen from the current and future productivity and prosperity of this nation from the thieves at the top than the thieves at the bottom. Its funny because the thieves at the top actively pay to point our attention away from them towards those at the bottom.

Imo, the question isn't why benefits pay so much but rather, why does work pay so little?

Let's have more dignity than to be fighting each other over the scraps.

 

[no_dependent4663]

16 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. 

 

yup, agree 100%. Benefits too. bread and circuses. Keep those who aren't old money busy and distracted.

[no_dependent4663]

13 hours 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? 

great points, people are like water they will flow whichever way is easiest. The system is set up to penalise working parents trying to create a better life, legacy and upward mobility and reward those with no ambition. How peculiar.

[no_dependent4663]

10 hours ago, bartelbe said:

I am well aware that wages are stagnant and we are being shafted but what the Guardian types fail to grasp is how toxic benefits have become.

The great postwar Labour government, that established much of the welfare state, understood this. They deliberately set benefits so they would be uncomfortable and those who were in work were better off. Unless you're going to claim Clement Attlee was a red tory?

And what the Sun types don't realise is this makes it sound like you prioritise making some people more uncomfortable over making others more comfortable.

If the answer to making Britain a better place to work is 'make the alternative worse' then we arent thinking big enough imo.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, no_dependent4663 said:

An important point, as much as people on this site love to complain about benefits and immigrants the real issue will always be all the money in the caymans, jersey, etc

More is stolen from the current and future productivity and prosperity of this nation from the thieves at the top than the thieves at the bottom. Its funny because the thieves at the top actively pay to point our attention away from them towards those at the bottom.

Imo, the question isn't why benefits pay so much but rather, why does work pay so little?

Let's have more dignity than to be fighting each other over the scraps.

 

Yes.

The average income of the nation as a whole is about £40,000, which with about half the population working would equate to 80K per worker. In reality, they go nowhere close and eared income is taxed heavily. The average amount of wealth equates to everyone owning their home outright, and a large chunk of a business and stocks, which are the bits that are not taxed heavily).

[winkie]

13 hours ago, Casual-observer said:

Which doesn't negate the point. The historical answer to this was marriage. 

......an expensive piece of paper with a promise, that can easily be broken......no different to a verbal agreement between two people.