[Closed] Could you live on £26,OOO per year. DC content

Rich Penny Don't be a fool

I am Not on Benefits and also you forgotten to include all of my reply
And just what is your point in listing the above has the thread is about
What exactly ?

RichPenny - Member
Maybe i should claim my Human Rights and get something back for what i put in.
Or maybe you could consider that you already get a great deal living in the country, and STFU?

grantway -Member
Just what deal would that be ??? Have worked my nuts off all through my life so far
and had my company for 8 years mostly working through the nights if not 24hrs
to get things out the workshop in time Now employ 4 persons and always
worried of sales etc even though we have a good order book.
Also i live in East London

So WHAT DEAL WOULD THAT BE !!

POSTED 22 MINUTES AGO #

Single dad, 2 kids, working full time here. Total income after tax and including benefits is below £24000. We cope, I can't complain as it could be so much worse.

Fair play.

There are far to many ****ing nuggets who moan about not having enough money and are struggling to make ends meet, when they're earning £40k+

Owning an Audi, skiing holidays abroad, a mountain bike and sky tv etc. are all luxuries not necessities. Sort your lives out.

Yes easily. I have a large flat in leafy SW London (mortgaged) with super high service charges, have a cleaner, drive an Audi and my base yearly outgoings are about £22k. No children mind you, no fags, booze or drugs.

In fact as I understand it the draft documentation proposes a cap of £350/wk for a single person with no children.

No, per family I believe. Not an issue if you've 1 or 2 kids, might become one if you have more. Probably an issue if you lived in London and had a big family. I'd imagine that private rent on say a 3 or 4 bed house would be a lot. Still, combine this plan with a commitment to build loads more social housing and it would make sense.

If I hated work as much as grantway seems to, I'd probably look at changing jobs. Even if I didn't, I'd probably look at moving out of E London.

Does this benefit need to pay for the complex care needs of say someone with cerebral palsy whose parents want their child to live at homs?

Dunno. Council or NHS will usually pay for most of care costs after assessing need. A financial assessment is usually undertaken for adults to contribute to the costs of thier care but it's usually pretty small (although council care charges are increasing). The aim of Disabiltiy Living Allowance is that it will pay for additional care costs because of the disability eg, help with getting around (mobility component) and additonal care costs (care component). But DLA is getting scrapped too and rpelaced with something else.....

For everyone who thinks its only scroungers who get benefits.

A friend lost his job a couple of years ago (married with a no-working wife and 3 small children) and he got far more than £26k; if you included all their benefits and the mortgage interest.

In fact his mortgage interest was probably half that on its own. Fancy living on £1100 pcm to keep five - I don't.

The (national) company he worked for went bust just after the 2008 crash, losing his near six-figure package; it took him 15 months to get another role. He's now back on good money and slowly digging himself out of the financial 'hole'.

We need to separate housing costs from benefit costs, especially as they are probably double in some areas of the country.

our family of three (very soon to be four) lives on less...

you lot need to MTFU

AS said above - this what happens when you sell all the council houses and deny councils the ability to build more.

a homeless family has to be housed by law and not overcrowded. when the going rate for rent is over a thousand a month then there is over £12000 pa.

Whats really sick is this is likely to be an ex council house now in the hands of profiteering private landlords.

Its a direct and foreseen consequence of Tory policies

Its a direct and foreseen consequence of Tory policies

*yawn*

this what happens when you sell all the council houses and deny councils the ability to build more.

Did the previous government deny councils that ability too ?

Housing benefit is now being capped , so high rents dont get paid, and the tennants will have to either renegotiate a new lower rent or move somewhere cheaper, or get a job,to subsidise the rent.

Changes from 1 April 2011
From 1 April 2011 the rates for Local Housing Allowance will be reduced across the country:

Weekly excess
The maximum £15 weekly excess that some customers can get will be removed.

Limits on payments
A limit will be introduced so that Local Housing Allowance does not exceed:

•£250 a week for a one bedroom property (including shared accommodation)
•£290 a week for a two bedroom property
•£340 a week for a three bedroom property
•£400 a week for a four bedroom property
The maximum rate of Housing Benefit will be limited to the rate for a four bedroom property.

Guys - this was predicted when it was introduced many years ago. its a tory policy and this is what we all knew would happen - or those of us with our eyes open.

So obvious

And just what is your point in listing the above has the thread is about
What exactly ?

This is your initial quote:

Maybe i should claim my Human Rights and get something back for what i put in.

What I'm pointing out is that actually you do get something back for what you put in. And it's more than something, it's an enormous number of things of great value. No, you may not get back out [i]in financial terms[/i] what you put in because some people need more than you do. Maybe that isn't fair, but that wasn't your point, was it?

a homeless family has to be housed by law and not overcrowded. when the going rate for rent is over a thousand a month then there is over £12000 pa.

then you suggest moving to an area where the housing cost is less, as stated previously.

Project - so what happens to those in London? - there simply is not enough accommodation cheap enough to house them all.

do they have to move from London?

Monkeyboy - so yo want to force people to move from where they have lived all their lives?

the result of this will turn satellite towns into benefit ghettos.

the answer is to build more affordable housing especially family housing

Yes, yes I could. In fact I think I could scrape by on half that if pushed (2 people and a mortgage). I'm sure it will be hard for some people but I don't think it should be easy.

[img] [/img]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/housing-benefit-caps-force-families-out?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-plan-backfire?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/28/housing-benefit-cap-flight-suburbs?INTCMP=SRCH

of course there is nothing to mean that you have to live in London if your whole family is out of work is there?

Well apart from the fact that your other family might live there. And your friends. And your kids friends. And their schools. Nothing at all 🙄

Well apart from the fact that your other family might live there

Maybe they can help with the rent?

Our household income after tax probably isn't quite 26k.....we seem to do just fine on it, and are even on the way to getting onto the property ladder at some point this year.

I have a job that I love, and would much rather go out and earn my cash than sit at home all day and get benefits.

Torminalis
I heard over the din of my loud carsharer this morning that poverty was defined by children having to share bedrooms.

Whoever said that was talking total BS.

poly - Member
Still, combine this plan with a commitment to build loads more social housing and it would make sense.
of course there is nothing to mean that you have to live in London if your whole family is out of work is there? I'm not suggesting people should be forced to move, but I can't really abide the "it costs so much more to live in london" argument when there is nothing forcing you to stay, you'd be better off moving somewhere cheaper.

Be a good idea to build the houses first...

On the moving front:

TandemJeremy - Member
the result of this will turn satellite towns into benefit ghettos.

I'm sometimes ashamed to admit I have two sisters (with partners, & kids), who have spent their lives on benefits. They enjoy basically the same lifestyle as the rest of us. They can afford to run cars, take foreign holidays, buy decent clothes etc, eat out regularly. From the outside you would notice little difference between them & those of us that choose to work.

I also have a brother-in-law who is on DLA. This affords him a brand new house, albeit it a small one, but its on an estate where I'd need probably £250k+ to buy a 3 bed to house my family. Now this house comes fully funded, no Council Tax, all repairs/maintainance covered. He runs a brand new car, designer clothes, lunch/dinner out several times a week with like minded people. He doesnt like it when I point out that the benefits system is affording him the lifestyle of a single chap on probabaly a £30-£35k salary.

Now I'm as limp wristed and liberal as the next man, but...

Why should someone on benefits get their rent paid in the lovely rural village in Oxfordshire that most can't afford to buy in?

Why should the kids of a hardworking family have to share a bedroom because their parents can't afford to move but those on benefits get upgraded automatically?

Why should having more and more kids entitle you to more and more money?

Why does the benefits system as it stands make me feel like a ****ing Tory?

Surrounded By Zulus - Member
Does this benefit need to pay for the complex care needs of say someone with cerebral palsy whose parents want their child to live at homs?

I think they were planning to keep incapacity and sickness benefits available to top up. It was basic job seekers that was capped. They are making some significant changes to incapacity though as you will start to be assessed as to what you can do rather than what you can't.

This and the NHS are things that all parties should agree on and sign up to a plan to implement. Instead what will happen is you'll get a Tory slant on it now and then a labour slant when they get voted back in in a term or two and it'll be changed and money wasted. I'd vote for the guy with the leadership and management skills to pull that off!

IDS wants to make some massive changes, my GF was part of a consultants team advising on what the IT infrastructure changes would need to be so she was fairly clued up on it.

Monkeyboy - so you want to force people to move from where they have lived all their lives?

simply Yes - its free houseing, there should not be a choice.

If i were made redundnet and got a job that pays less well than my current employment then i would have to move to reduce costs. Or if i were to have another kid and required a three bed house, i'd also have to move.

Houseing benifit is exactly that, a benifit.

because thats the propaganda you are being fed.

the reality is really very different.

takisawa - what a load of bollocks

you wally

TeeJ - you answering me?

It really isn't you know. I know people in all the scenarios I describe. It's great for them... but it doesn't seem that fair.

Shelter’s chief executive Campbell Robb said: [b]'The Secretary of State said that, according to Shelter, a family where children share a bedroom would be defined as homeless. This is simply not true.[/b]

'Shelter uses the same definition of homelessness as the Government, as set out in the Housing Act 1996, passed by the last Conservative Government.

'We are disappointed that these comments are creating unnecessary confusion and deflecting from the real issues we should be focusing on today, namely the significant impacts these proposals will have on the [b]lives of those in the 67,000 affected households.[/b]

'According to the Government’s original impact assessment published last February, [b]the expected effects of this policy include households falling into rent arrears, resulting in some households having to move and others presenting as homeless to their local authority.'[/b]

The 1996 Housing Act defines homelessness to include not just rough sleeping, but a broader range of circumstances that include reasons why people are unable to occupy their current home, such as because of a threat of domestic violence.

This wider definition is essential in order to capture the true scale of the problem and to tackle it effectively. Only the most severe overcrowding, such as people sleeping in kitchens, could be potentially considered by local authorities as homeless under the statutory definition. This would not include two children sharing a room.

£26000 for sitting on your arse is a fortune.
I have friends and family with 3 or 4 kids each. All work and all get some modest form of state assistance.

Both however have total family incomes of much less than 25 or 26k after tax.

Hard working folk often have to move house due to financial situations and pllan for what might happen.
Move somewhere cheaper the rest of us would, and cheaper does not mean ghetto.

The Government needs to stop trying to force grannies out of their homes and building some houses. How many houses could have been built for the cost of the Olympics?

takisawa - If that really is their lifestyle then they are on the fiddle bigtime.

You guys need to look at what benefit levels really are - how much you actually get to spend per week. its not much at all.

Put some numbers in here
https://www.dwpe-services.direct.gov.uk/portal/page/portal/ba/lp

I was TSY adn I stand by it.

A life on benefits means little money unless you fiddle bigtime. It also takes a lot of choices away from you.

Put some numbers in the benefits calculator and see

Project - so what happens to those in London? - there simply is not enough accommodation cheap enough to house them all.

do they have to move from London?

Those who pay their own way would have to leave...

I learnt something interesting today about homelessness. The definition is quite strange. I haven't found a quotable source but there is a good chance I spent the first 16 years of my life effectively homeless because of the number of people in the house. It's not just sleeping rough or in very real threat of losing your house. Simply having too many people can be included. There were 6 of us in a 3 bedroom house.

Jonba see my quote from Shelter above.

ah, it would appear the reason I failed to find a source was that it wasn't true. Hardly a surprise...

Whats really sick is this is likely to be an ex council house now in the hands of profiteering private landlords.

or just one who has the balls to charge more 🙂 rent than you do? 😆

jonba - Member
ah, it would appear the reason I failed to find a source was that it wasn't true. Hardly a surprise...

That's not the first time I've heard that today so don't worry! There's been some spinning going on.

Hmm, we (2+3 kids) live on about £26k a year, two earning, grace n favour house and tax credits all added up into one. Somehow we feed, clothe, go on a holiday, run a car etc. Heck, I even run a bike and a canoe. It is not easy, and we watch the pennies.
Now we use our cunning - house swaps for holidays, second hand clothes for kids etc, but we also buy good quality clothes; eat well with as much organic, local, 'good' food as possible. We have been given a second car, we watch an ancient telly and second had DVD; buy second hand furniture and look after the ageing sofa's. Our mobile contract is £5 for a basic phone a month, not bling etc etc.
But it works.
I do think that there are two fundamental issues causing problems:
1) Lack of affordable housing for families (much related to 'house blocking' IMO by those who should downsize or head off out of social housing, and by the fact that we sold off most most of the house a few years back (se TJ's post).
2) Looking at priorities in people's life - our old school in Sheffield used to have kids come in having not eaten breakfast as the parent 'couldn't afford the food' - yet same parent was stinking of alchohol each morning...I work with people who are skint, but have blinging iPhone, who don't look after thier stuff brilliantly and wonder why they need to change it more often. etc etc.

If i were made redundnet and got a job that pays less well than my current employment then i would have to move to reduce costs.

You'd probably get housing benefit to enable you to stay where you are.

Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street. He said this was "very misleading".

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty ]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty [/url]

Misleading it may be but it is very clearly worded.

I'm not silly enough to try and make you change your mind.

I don't think that benefits are a great lifestyle choice by any means.

I do think it's ridiculous to stand by arguments regarding keeping people in the village they grew up in and paying silly rents to do so.

Why?

Because, they're further away from where jobs and services are and they're not served by decent transport links, they're effectively in a benefits trap.
Plus, every person not on benefits has had to move to local towns where they can afford to rent or buy.

TSY - thats a tiny proportion of people - its families in the cities that will be affected mainly.

Have a read of this to see just how silly it is

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/22/housing-benefit-cap-62p-a-day

Richpenny - Member
Well apart from the fact that your other family might live there. And your friends. And your kids friends. And their schools. Nothing at all

Yes it is a shame But you simply have to go where the work is Do you not!
or are you a believer of sitting on your Arss and waiting for the right bus to stop ?

Torminalis - Member
'Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street. He said this was "very misleading".'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty

Misleading it may be but it is very clearly worded.

That's not the definition though, it doesn't mention sharing bedrooms FFS. Overcrowding means people using kitchens, living rooms any space in the house as a place to sleep.