[Closed] Housing benefit

Sound advice, I take it you practice what you preach

I do.

Hang on, I'm confused

I know, I think a lot of people are...

Basically, if you're gonna gamble, then it's probbly not a good idea to gamble with more than you can afford to lose. And if you're borrowing the money to gamble with to begin with, then even more important not to mess up. Because if you do, yo may be even more in schtuck.

As for living within your means; if gambling takes you beyond this point, it might not be a good idea to gamble.

And if you are gonna gamble, and you do lose, then accept the consequences.

I know it's extremely complex and difficult to understand such concepts, but that's how it works, I'm afraid.

😆 I love you Elf, sitting in your tower hamlets bedsit handing out advice to the world

Well, in business, you have to be prepared to take risks. Be prepared to lose out. Many people were making quick and easy money, which seduced too many others to come and have a go for themselves. Sorry, but the bubble had to burst sometime.

looks like the housing benefit bubble is about to burst as well, or i that supposed to be risk free?

Since we live in a capitalist country can't we just not let the market sort all this out.

Stick the cap on HB, then as the people who man the checkouts at the supermarkets, deliver parcels, clean offices, empty the bins etc all those underpaid jobs that keep our way of life going move to other places then the wealthy and completely out of touch with reality folk who like to live in a 3 bed semi that they paid half a million plus for in some well to do area realise that no one is about to put food on the supermarket shelves etc will all want to move thus devaluing the property in such places.

Might take a few years though and I am sure the knock on effects for the economy might be a bit poop, but hey capitalism rules!

in my experience in most cities you will get a significant range of "desirablity" within a mile or so. Hardly arduous if you get on IDS's bus or Norm's dad's bike

Erm, 'scuse me, but it's a 'Docklands Appartment', thank you very much... 🙄

[img] [/img]

(It is actually in this picture 😆 )

Woman opposite me is a secondary school teacher. She pays £1200 a month rent for her house. Garden and everything. Goes out a fair bit, wears nice clothes, likes nice things. Not poor.

I have no idea what she earns. It's none of my business, and quite frankly I'm not actually interested. I find all that sort of thing rather boring. But if you want to hypothesise about her earnings, knock yourself out. I'm off to bed.

Night all!

the point, seeing as you missed it. Is that your example is not typical of a school teacher and so does not illustrate the point you wish to make.

Did I say Secondary School Teacher? My mistake, she's a Bin-Man. No, hang on, a Harley St Doctor. Or was it a Telecommunications Engineer? A Butcher? A Baker? A Candlestick Maker?

(Bed-time Elfin...)

Sure. But people have to be realistic, and exercise caution. [b]As well as not living beyond their means.[/b]

is this not the point of the exercise?

The state has been doing exactly that, whatever the underlying reason. Whilst the extent of the cuts necessary is wholly debatable (and more than a little tedious) the whole reason it's necessary is that money out has exceeded money in by a country mile. There are arguments to be had over where the cuts should be deepest (hence threads like this).

Like a large portion of the welfare state there are a million and one shades of grey between those who are genuinely in need of help and those frankly taking the michael. Unfortunately there are also polar opposite political stances that have a natural tendancy to focus their attentions on either end of this scale ie. certain elements of the press like nothing more than to bang on about Mr Scrounger getting 70K in benefits a year, followed shortly by the bleeding hearts expounding the tale of misery and woe that has left Mr Deserving in penury and surviving on tuppence and a tea-spoon of sugar a week.

The way I see it is that the majority of the population are hard-working. They pay a sliding scale of taxes. It is naturally going to stick in the craw when they see people who don't work, regardless of the reason, living a life of comparative luxury funded by the state. This inequality, perceived or real, is only going to be more evident when the cuts really dig in and the money left at the end of the month gets less and less for those working.

Whether or not the politicians are being disingenuous with policies such this is again debatable. That they focus the attention of the press (and by-proxy the population) is evident and for the many reasons outlined previously it's going to be seen as a sensible policy because people, especially nervous enough about their own circumstances, like to see what they perceive as some sort of fairness.

How it's going to work in practice - no idea... 😕

What I'm pretty sure is that our generation, and that of my kids, isn't going to have things anywhere near as comfortable as my parents and the bulk of the other baby-boomers. Recently retired with a mortgage paid off and a frightening amount of equity in property courtesy of the housing market. I think there needs to be a sea-change away from the assumption than home ownership is a right rather than a privilege - I've relatives in Germany for example who think that the obsession with owning your own place is frankly a little odd and renting is the norm.

Surely it comes down to this:

If a family is already living in an area where rents are pushing £1730+ a month and they lose their income, they are unlikely to qualify for any housing benefit in the first place (or other benefits) until they’ve used up their savings and sold their assets down to a maximum of £15K. These families should be helped – they were paying for the accommodation themselves in the first place and at some point have a reasonable probability of getting back into jobs that would pay them enough to rent the same standard privately.

For families who have never been able to afford £1730 a month (or more – up to £8K a month for the Somali family living in Kensington featured in the papers yesterday), it’s reasonable to assume that even if they did get back into work (assuming they were able to) then they would never be able to afford the £1730 privately, so would always be dependent on the state. For these families is it not fair to expect them to live in an area where they could afford to pay their own way (again, with caveats as some people can’t work), and thus pay their own way at some point. This seems more sensible than to tax payers and people on housing benefit as the net result is that these families are over time likely to live in an area they can afford to buy a property in, thus giving them that security.

What seems daft are the arguments that it’s social engineering or would have a disruptive impact on communities as a result of children having to move schools. There are many people in work who’d like to live in “expensive” areas but can’t afford to – it’s not discriminating against these people to not help them out any more than helping out families who are already on benefit to live in the same expensive areas. The schools argument is also quite weak – families move all the time, particularly where one parent moves to start a new job, so I don’t personally see how it’s a burden to ask non working families to do the same thing that many working families do.

"Ok - in Edinburgh there are almost no 4 bed properties available under the limit, So no one who is unemployed and had a family can live in Edinburgh or its suburbs any more? "

[url= http://tinyurl.com/383str3 ]121 4 bed properties available on rightmove in Edinburgh [/url]

Farmerjohn - that was already pointed out thanks.

[i]"Elfinsafety - Member

I'm sorry, it's just bollocks that someone like a barrister 'can't afford' to rent their own flat in London, in spite of high rents. "[/i]

Not really - until they are well into their careers, most barristers will be making less than £30K - even in London. Barrister's in their early career will typically be on £15K - £25K rising to an average of just over £40K (all barristers, 2008) and that's income rather than salary as most are self employed and at the mercy of when their clients decide to pay.

By my reckoning this means that these highly qualified people on average make less per hour than the firefighters...

I am pretty sure parts of South Wales Mythr Tydfyl (SP) for example and any of those old mining towns have lots of cheap housing stock at well under £400 per week. Similarly I am pretty sure Hull has somewhere very cheap to live.

Just trying to be helpful!

Speaking as someone who pays taxes, has a job and funds a mortgage and is generally doing their bit to look after themselves rather than expecting anyone else to keep me in the manner to which I might like to be accustomed.

Indeed I have resisted the temptation to have children on the grounds I don't want to pay for them or indeed can't affort to pay for them!

nice dig there at firefighters again there farmer john you like that dont you 😉

i think your reckoning is also off looking at those figures

ave wage for barrister £40k after early years on £15/25k firefighter wage £28k after 5 years training til qualified on £18/22k

tho thats off topic 😉

once again, something that [i]might[/i] only affect* a tiny number of people in certain parts of london makes the national headlines.

£400/wk? - outside of the M25 you can rent a palace for that.

(*inconvenience)

(if it annoys the kind of people who read the guardian, and shami chakrabarti - then i'm all for it)

Elfinsafety - Member
Biscuit Powered; come down to where I live, Tower Hamlets, and I'll show you the reality of such a policy, as you clearly have bugger all idea of how this will affect real people.

The people who work, pay the taxes and get zero help with the cost of living are also real people. But then they're lucky to be well off aren't they, except they can't afford to live where they want.

TJ makes a fair point about people being forced out of their communities but at some point surely that becomes acceptable surely? Flip it on it's head, there's not much support for wealthy people when they benefit from hereditary rights so why should someone on a low income automatically have a right to live somewhere because their parents lived there. Extrapolating that logic if your parents lived in a rundown area should you be expected to stay there as well because it is your community?

All a bit of a moot point though as areas come and go so what's currently run down is likely to be the next development site if it's in an inner city area, certainly seems to be the case in Manchester. It's always happened. Trouble is we don't have enough nice areas for everyone to live in and controversially maybe, just maybe in some areas the residents themselves are the ones to destroy their neighbourhood (no doubt that's not their fault though as they are deprived!).

I'm assumingyou own this property to earn money by renting it out?

Elfin no far from it. It was my home,the place I bought to live in not speculate. I always believed the property market was overcooked and unsustainable and never saw my home as a cash machine.

I am forced to rent it because having lived there four years I met a girl, fell in love and between the two of us, I was the one who relocated (from Chester to Horsham) so that we could build a life together.

Unfortunately the value in flats in Chester and most other city centres has falled dramatically due to oversupply and I now have the choice of either renting it out (at a cost to me of a £180 a month net over the interest part of the mortgage) or sell it at a loss of £25k.

My point was that a family of three could live there quite happily for under £600 a month.

The idea that limiting HB to £1733 a month is in some way pernicious, uncaring or wrong is laughable.

To afford that kind of rent a month, gross of tax implies a salary of about £35k a year, which would put that individual in the top quartile of salaried earnings in the UK.

A hard one it is trapping people in benefits if we pay a rent that they cannot realistically afford to pay whilst in work but it also strikes me as the politics of envy 😯 😉 - I work hard and cannot afford this so why should they
It will also have a bad effect on other areas as people move from well off areas of that their London to poorer areas of london - putting a greater burden on council tax payers of the poor area and reducing it from the rich area - so again we are making the poor pay for the rich BRILLIANT.

Overall I see it as a reasonable step to cap the total benefits that people can get from the state but I am not sure exactly what the best method of achieving this is

Did I say Secondary School Teacher? My mistake, she's a Bin-Man. No, hang on, a Harley St Doctor. Or was it a Telecommunications Engineer? A Butcher? A Baker? A Candlestick Maker?

So... what was your point? Someone across the road pays £1200 in rent and they like nice things?

#
ahwiles - Member

(if it annoys the kind of people who read the guardian, and shami chakrabarti - then i'm all for it)
Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post

That is a genuinely excellent rule of thumb.

please don't misunderstand me, i agree with almost everything written in the guardian, and spoken by Shami C.

but also, 9times out of 10, i'm part of the problem, be it social injustice, pollution, whatever.

and i'm exactly the kind of smug, lefty, guardian reading git who denies any responsibility, claiming
'it can't possibly be my fault - i read the guardian'

So... what was your point?

I was just bored and tired.

You and I know absolutely nothing about this woman's actual earnings, yet you chose to hypothesise about it. Without any information other than Google 'Average teacher's earnings' or whatever. And then, there seemed to almost be a sense of anger that a 'lowly school teacher' can afford to live in such an expensive place.

See, it's this obsessing with other people's earnings and the petty envy that I can't stand. I have no interest in what other people earn; I just get on with me own life which is stressful enough.

Unfortunately the value in flats in Chester and most other city centres has falled dramatically due to oversupply and I now have the choice of either renting it out (at a cost to me of a £180 a month net over the interest part of the mortgage) or sell it at a loss of £25k.

Ok, so that's a bit crap. But, you do have somewhere to live, don't you? And I'm not trying to be nasty, but the harsh reality of the property market is that values can go up as well as down. Sadly, for you, it has gone down. Same as for my landlord. But that's life, eh?

You and I know absolutely nothing about this woman's actual earnings, yet you chose to hypothesise about it.

Not really, if she is a school teacher, then I know a bit about her earnings. With or without google.

And then, there seemed to almost be a sense of anger that a 'lowly school teacher' can afford to live in such an expensive place

I certainly wasn't angry about anyone living there, and I certainly don't consider teachers to be 'lowly'. I'm not sure where that came from.

In a discussion about affordable rents and similar. You put forward an example of a teacher who was able to pay £1200 rent and buy nice clothes and go out fairly regularly. ([i]you seem to know some personal info about her albeit not her wage, not sure why this is any more personal than the other details[/i])
I was suggesting that this was implausible unless she was a particularly well-paid teacher, in which case, she would not be a good example for you to put forward. As your point would be reduced to 'Someone across from me, is very well paid and pays £1200 in rent and likes nice things and goes out regularly'. Which would be a trivial and meaningless in the context of the current discussion.

I was not obsessing about her wage (nor how often she went out or how nice her clothes were). Nor was I envious.

Not really, if she is a school teacher, then I know a bit about her earnings.

Do you? Really?

[url= http://www.tes.co.uk/section.aspx?navcode=257 ]Gosh you're clever... [/url]

😆

Ok, so that's a bit crap.

Mate there are far worse things in life than being a forced landlord. I could get diagnosed with bowel cancer tomorrow and leave my son to grow up without a dad. And yes I have somewhere to live, a wonderful wife who works very hard, an amazing son whom I love more than I ever thought was possible and, now, a decent job that allows me to earn a good living and work from home. It was touch and go for a while - lost my job, had to fall back on savings and redundancy insurance, had to support a wife coming apart at the seams with PND.... Had a few sleepless nights I can tell you.

But I pulled us all through it. I did, not the state/tax payers. I did without in the good times so I could buy insurance against these things. Which is why I get angry at other people who don't take responsibility for their situation and I think that's sort of the main gist of peoples' resentment on this thread.

Ok, so that's a bit crap. But, you do have somewhere to live, don't you? And I'm not trying to be nasty, but the harsh reality of the property market is that values can go up as well as down. Sadly, for you, it has gone down. Same as for my landlord. But that's life, eh?

"life" now applies to those on HB

I did without in the good times so I could buy insurance against these things. Which is why I get angry at other people who don't take responsibility for their situation and I think that's sort of the main gist of peoples' resentment on this thread

[i]Not really, if she is a school teacher, then I know a bit about her earnings.[/i]
Do you? Really?

and previously you knew absolutely nothing about her earnings! See every day you learn something new. Your thanks are assumed.

Sadly not everyone in your situation gets out by just hard work you also need some luck , skills to start with, support of loved ones etc .

This sort of takes us in a different direction; you end up in a fate versus self determination discussion eventually.

I think hardwork is correlated with luck - like a famous golfer once said, 'the more I practice, the luckier I get'. I agree that the 'work ethic' thing has been used with spite and vitriol towards certain groups in the past (the notion of the 'lazy poor') but at the same time, it is the one thing that we can all do, that no one can take away from us.

As for skills, well everyone has something they are good at.

everyone has something they are good at

I think hardwork is correlated with luck

I'll not comment on the original post as I don't know how to fix the problems. But I'll give you my experience of 'benefits'...

I was made redundant earlier in the year.

I went to the job centre and was sent home with a number to call to get into the system. Made the call and got my interview.

Filled out the paperwork, did all I was to do and at the end of the day what was I entitled to?.....

£65 per week. To feed, clothe, put a roof over our heads and everything else for our fammily!

That was it! For me, my wife and our 3 kids.

I asked if I was entitled to any other benefits.

No.

How do I feed my kids? Reply - a shrug of teh shoulders.

I worked all my working life the same as everyone else, paying tax and NI etc etc etc

Entitled to £65 per week and that's it!

Now, I thought the 'system' was in place to help people who are caught in a situation like me? Very much not in reality.

The next week as I'm sitting waiting to sign on there's a couple in front of me - young, she's pregnant, both unemployed. They were getting all sorts! She even moaned about her housing benefit - something to do with a missed payment.

I could have exploded!

I don't know where, or why, or how it all went wrong but it is seriously wrong.

I'm disgusted with the whole system.

Luckily I found a new job and I hope I never need to go in there again.

PS, I'd love to have £1733 per month to spend on rent/mortgage. I ****in wish...

£400 a week to spend on rent/mortgage. Thats a huge amount of money for the state to fork out. House share or move to somewhere cheaper, thats what working folk have to do.

I think that's sort of the main gist of peoples' resentment on this thread.

Which is essentially fairly ignorant and mis-directed.

Is it the 'poor' who have pushed up property prices?

Is it the 'poor' who are to blame for the current economic crisis?

Is it the 'poor' who deserve the brunt of people's resentment and anger?

See, the fact that many on here are quick to have a go at the '****less', the 'lazy', the 'workshy' etc, talk of M'ingTFU, and all sorts of other tired rhetoric, shows what a selfish society we live in.

All well and good spouting off on here, sitting comfortably behind your keyboards, moaning about things and directing yer anger at others, but who amongst you actually has the balls to come down to my manor, as I've suggested, and let me show you some of the reality of social deprivation?

Believe me, for every 'dole scroungers living life of riley' Daily Mail bollocks story you can come up with, I can show you a thousand proper serious cases of genuine need. Like the mother of the little blind girl I once spoke to; pushed from one temporary home to another, when what the poor child needed a stable, safe environment where she could become familiar to her surroundings. Or the number of people I know who've had to give up work to look after a sick or disabled relative, with no other support than benefits. Or those with severe mental health problems who end up homeless simply because they can't cope with things the rest of us find easy. Or people who've suffered in violent and abusive homes, as children or in relationships. And all the rest.

No, you carry on. Because of course you deserve more than anyone else, eh?

Cheeze. The biggest 'hardship' most of you have to suffer is working out what ****ing tyres to put on yer bikes, ffs.

Come on; those of you who've got any balls; come and let me show you some of the realities of the situations you seem to be such experts on, given how much you waffle on about them on here.

Elfin - I'm down your way for work on a regular basis. I'll come and join you.

That's me lot on this thread. Had enough of it. Feel free to carry on waffling crap in my absence.

whats that led zep lyric?

"lots of people talking but few of them know"

spectacularly applicable here.

I claim housing benefit and am in receipt of income support and a carers allowance for looking after my wife.

I am 34 and was an averagely paid IT professional prior to becoming a carer (not that that is specifically relevant just to underline that i have been on both sides...).

Not one mention of the Discretionary housing payment yet? Not too many of you have much experience of being in a rental shortfall situation then?

This DHP fund has been added to (i forget by how much at the Budget, but i bet it will swell considerably, and quietly....) by the Government and affectively supports the rent of a person or people who have justifyable need to stay where they are.

Take me and my wife, we need to live where we are to still receive help and support from relatives, and to be near specific healthcare providers. Also our privately rented bungalow in which we were housed by the council, is specifically adapted.

It is in an okish area of northampton the rent is not high it is about average, but if it were higher the DHP would cover it.

As it would for anyone with a [b]justifyable[/b] need to stay where they are.

You lot just need some perspective of what is actually justifyable.

For once i actually agree with a government decision, (sorry Fred! I am normally in your lefty camp) you dont need to live somewhere unless your life depends on it, and if it does DHP will meet the shortfall.

Anyone else is free to move (with council grants available to help with costs if you cant afford it).

People should not be governmentally financed to stay in areas where they cannot afford to live.

Is it the 'poor' who have pushed up property prices?

in terms of rental, yes. Housing benefit and the "need" to house large families in big houses where they want to live which can't be provided by councilshas inflated prices in the sector

See, the fact that many on here are quick to have a go at the '****less', the 'lazy', the 'workshy' etc, talk of M'ingTFU, and all sorts of other tired rhetoric, shows what a selfish society we live in.

the posts on this mainly are about the financials comparing there own reality (live where you can afford), with housing benefit reality for some(live where you want)

I can show you a thousand proper serious cases of genuine need. Like the mother of the little blind girl I once spoke to; pushed from one temporary home to another, when what the poor child needed a stable, safe environment where she could become familiar to her surroundings. Or the number of people I know who've had to give up work to look after a sick or disabled relative, with no other support than benefits. Or those with severe mental health problems who end up homeless simply because they can't cope with things the rest of us find easy. Or people who've suffered in violent and abusive homes, as children or in relationships. And all the rest.

who are ill served by a system that creates a benefits "middle class" of large family units living comparatively well compared to the adjacent worker who pays tax for it and who strip money out of the system.

No, you carry on. Because of course you deserve more than anyone else, eh?

I thought this was your argument, to carry on as we are now?

timdrayton - In my head I always thought that for people in your situation this was exactly one of the reasons why I pay into the system.

This I have no problem with at all - we are supposed to look after each other.

If someone has to rely on HB to stay near their job because the wages aren't enough, and lose it so have to move, then surely the next person to take their job won't earn enough to stay near by?