The politics of £72 a week vs the price of housing.
Was reading a thread in the society section and I was wondering is it possible to live on £72 a week in benefits? My answer; its a postcode lottery!
These calculations are based on a single person.
I got these figures from a mate who is a ultra frugal hippie.
Council Tax: £3.60 (Single occupants only pay 75% of the bill and Benefit Claimants get 75% of the amount due as Council Tax Benefit).
Broadband & Phone with Anytime calls: £4.62
Electricity £6.90
Gas £2.30
TV Licence £2.80
Water £2.77
Total £22.99
So excluding Rent there would be £49.01 left for food.
The problem is that those who claim housing benefit often pay more for their housing than the amount given in housing benefit. This means that private landlords who provide for the benefit claimant market know perfectly well that they are recieving money from claimants Job Seekers Allowance.
I have came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the rate of Job Seekers Allowance. The problem is greedy landlords and the lack of council housing.
These calculations are based on a single person.
I got these figures from a mate who is a ultra frugal hippie.
Council Tax: £3.60 (Single occupants only pay 75% of the bill and Benefit Claimants get 75% of the amount due as Council Tax Benefit).
Broadband & Phone with Anytime calls: £4.62
Electricity £6.90
Gas £2.30
TV Licence £2.80
Water £2.77
Total £22.99
So excluding Rent there would be £49.01 left for food.
The problem is that those who claim housing benefit often pay more for their housing than the amount given in housing benefit. This means that private landlords who provide for the benefit claimant market know perfectly well that they are recieving money from claimants Job Seekers Allowance.
I have came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the rate of Job Seekers Allowance. The problem is greedy landlords and the lack of council housing.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by illegaltobepoor
I have came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the rate of Job Seekers Allowance. The problem is ________________ the lack of council housing.
Apart from the bit replaced with underline, agreed.
Is the £72/week before or after rent?
Original post by Hydeman
Apart from the bit replaced with underline, agreed.
Is the £72/week before or after rent?
Is the £72/week before or after rent?
Housing Benefit is suppose to cover rent but in almost the majority of cases Job Seekers Allowance is being used to pay for Housing.
Property speculation then.
Original post by illegaltobepoor
Was reading a thread in the society section and I was wondering is it possible to live on £72 a week in benefits? My answer; its a postcode lottery!
These calculations are based on a single person.
I got these figures from a mate who is a ultra frugal hippie.
Council Tax: £3.60 (Single occupants only pay 75% of the bill and Benefit Claimants get 75% of the amount due as Council Tax Benefit).
Broadband & Phone with Anytime calls: £4.62
Electricity £6.90
Gas £2.30
TV Licence £2.80
Water £2.77
Total £22.99
So excluding Rent there would be £49.01 left for food.
The problem is that those who claim housing benefit often pay more for their housing than the amount given in housing benefit. This means that private landlords who provide for the benefit claimant market know perfectly well that they are recieving money from claimants Job Seekers Allowance.
I have came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the rate of Job Seekers Allowance. The problem is greedy landlords and the lack of council housing.
These calculations are based on a single person.
I got these figures from a mate who is a ultra frugal hippie.
Council Tax: £3.60 (Single occupants only pay 75% of the bill and Benefit Claimants get 75% of the amount due as Council Tax Benefit).
Broadband & Phone with Anytime calls: £4.62
Electricity £6.90
Gas £2.30
TV Licence £2.80
Water £2.77
Total £22.99
So excluding Rent there would be £49.01 left for food.
The problem is that those who claim housing benefit often pay more for their housing than the amount given in housing benefit. This means that private landlords who provide for the benefit claimant market know perfectly well that they are recieving money from claimants Job Seekers Allowance.
I have came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the rate of Job Seekers Allowance. The problem is greedy landlords and the lack of council housing.
Tv licence isn't exactly essential: I don't have one. Also many people on benefits are unlikely to have a phone tariff worth more than £5-10/month and when you're on the poverty line broadband is a luxury you don't need. I'm currently on Universal Credit and this includes the housing element. My rent is £80/week (all bill included), my housing benefit is about £270/month and I get about £40/month deducted because the DWP made a mistake months ago. This currently leaves £35/week for everything although thankfully I have some income from my part time jobs and I and going to be starting full time in about a month which is very fortunate as this amount of money is simply not sustainable.
Original post by Manitude
Tv licence isn't exactly essential: I don't have one. Also many people on benefits are unlikely to have a phone tariff worth more than £5-10/month and when you're on the poverty line broadband is a luxury you don't need. I'm currently on Universal Credit and this includes the housing element. My rent is £80/week (all bill included), my housing benefit is about £270/month and I get about £40/month deducted because the DWP made a mistake months ago. This currently leaves £35/week for everything although thankfully I have some income from my part time jobs and I and going to be starting full time in about a month which is very fortunate as this amount of money is simply not sustainable.
Well lets put you in someone else's shoes shall we. Lets say you live in a poor built up area where all the libraries have shut down and you have zero access to the internet but to use Universal Credit and Universal Job Match you need access to the internet. What do you do?
Lets also put you in the position where you need the use of a telephone to apply for jobs. Since you don't want to have high phone bill at the end of the month you take the Anytime calls option.
Oh and 10% of the UK isn't covered by Optic Fibre so those prices aren't available for everyone.
But your right Job Seekers do not need a TV licence but the Goon's who work for the BBC though their contractor Capita have a tendency to set up innocent victims for prosecution though tricking them into signing a form which they use as evidence in court.
Should a person risk this and get into debt?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by illegaltobepoor
But your right Job Seekers do not need a TV licence but the Goon's who work for the BBC though their contractor Capita have a tendency to set up innocent victims for prosecution though tricking them into signing a form which they use as evidence in court.
Should a person risk this and get into debt?
Should a person risk this and get into debt?
You must be joking... How does one trick somebody into signing a form of that kind? You should know better than to sign before reading when your finances are that precarious. At least in that instance it can't be argued that people shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions.
They shouldn't risk it and get into debt. If they can afford it, then sure, get a TV licence. Otherwise it's an unnecessary luxury that can wait until they are back in employment.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by illegaltobepoor
Well lets put you in someone else's shoes shall we. Lets say you live in a poor built up area where all the libraries have shut down and you have zero access to the internet but to use Universal Credit and Universal Job Match you need access to the internet. What do you do?
Lets also put you in the position where you need the use of a telephone to apply for jobs. Since you don't want to have high phone bill at the end of the month you take the Anytime calls option.
Oh and 10% of the UK isn't covered by Optic Fibre so those prices aren't available for everyone.
But your right Job Seekers do not need a TV licence but the Goon's who work for the BBC though their contractor Capita have a tendency to set up innocent victims for prosecution though tricking them into signing a form which they use as evidence in court.
Should a person risk this and get into debt?
Lets also put you in the position where you need the use of a telephone to apply for jobs. Since you don't want to have high phone bill at the end of the month you take the Anytime calls option.
Oh and 10% of the UK isn't covered by Optic Fibre so those prices aren't available for everyone.
But your right Job Seekers do not need a TV licence but the Goon's who work for the BBC though their contractor Capita have a tendency to set up innocent victims for prosecution though tricking them into signing a form which they use as evidence in court.
Should a person risk this and get into debt?
"Put you in someone else's shoes" - those pretty much are my shoes, pal. Job centres have free internet access during business hours, I used to live something like five miles from my job centre. Now I only live a mile away from a different one so I walk every time I need to go there. And if you ask nicely they'll let you use the phones too. As I said, most job seekers don't have expensive phone contracts because they don't need them. I used to work at a job centre and so I got to know quite a lot of claimants. I know their habits, I know exactly what they go through. I know how the system works (mostly) and how difficult it really is to get sanctioned.
It's exceptionally difficult to get prosecuted for not having a TV licence. You have to pretty much want to get caught. There is no obligation to let the inspectors into your house unless they have a warrant signed by a judge which they never do. Virtually all of the time they don't even know the name of the person who lives at an unlicensed address.
Original post by Manitude
"Put you in someone else's shoes" - those pretty much are my shoes, pal. Job centres have free internet access during business hours, I used to live something like five miles from my job centre. Now I only live a mile away from a different one so I walk every time I need to go there. And if you ask nicely they'll let you use the phones too. As I said, most job seekers don't have expensive phone contracts because they don't need them. I used to work at a job centre and so I got to know quite a lot of claimants. I know their habits, I know exactly what they go through. I know how the system works (mostly) and how difficult it really is to get sanctioned.
It's exceptionally difficult to get prosecuted for not having a TV licence. You have to pretty much want to get caught. There is no obligation to let the inspectors into your house unless they have a warrant signed by a judge which they never do. Virtually all of the time they don't even know the name of the person who lives at an unlicensed address.
It's exceptionally difficult to get prosecuted for not having a TV licence. You have to pretty much want to get caught. There is no obligation to let the inspectors into your house unless they have a warrant signed by a judge which they never do. Virtually all of the time they don't even know the name of the person who lives at an unlicensed address.
Well costs can be argued. It depends where you live and the services available to you. I hope we can agree on that. The fact of the matter is you can live on £72 a week IF your in a area where rent prices are affordable in relation to the amount a person gets in housing benefit.
By the way did you leave the Job Centre or was you sacked?
Original post by Hydeman
You must be joking... How does one trick somebody into signing a form of that kind? You should know better than to sign before reading when your finances are that precarious. At least in that instance it can't be argued that people shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions.
They shouldn't risk it and get into debt. If they can afford it, then sure, get a TV licence. Otherwise it's an unnecessary luxury that can wait until they are back in employment.
They shouldn't risk it and get into debt. If they can afford it, then sure, get a TV licence. Otherwise it's an unnecessary luxury that can wait until they are back in employment.
It happens a lot. Majority of people who are prosecuted are single mothers and disabled people.
Original post by illegaltobepoor
It happens a lot. Majority of people who are prosecuted are single mothers and disabled people.
Yes, and that doesn't justify anything. Just because they're single mothers and disabled people doesn't mean they deserve sympathy for willingly signing up to something they neither need nor can afford. One exception would be if be people who aren't in a mentally fit state to sign legal documents and contracts and such. But other than that, they must take responsibility for this. Nobody else can be blamed for such a thing.
Original post by Hydeman
Yes, and that doesn't justify anything. Just because they're single mothers and disabled people doesn't mean they deserve sympathy for willingly signing up to something they neither need nor can afford. One exception would be if be people who aren't in a mentally fit state to sign legal documents and contracts and such. But other than that, they must take responsibility for this. Nobody else can be blamed for such a thing.
I have a better idea. Abolish the TV licence. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 survive without funding so why can't the BBC?
Original post by illegaltobepoor
Was reading a thread in the society section and I was wondering is it possible to live on £72 a week in benefits? My answer; its a postcode lottery!
These calculations are based on a single person.
I got these figures from a mate who is a ultra frugal hippie.
Council Tax: £3.60 (Single occupants only pay 75% of the bill and Benefit Claimants get 75% of the amount due as Council Tax Benefit).
Broadband & Phone with Anytime calls: £4.62
Electricity £6.90
Gas £2.30
TV Licence £2.80
Water £2.77
Total £22.99
So excluding Rent there would be £49.01 left for food.
The problem is that those who claim housing benefit often pay more for their housing than the amount given in housing benefit. This means that private landlords who provide for the benefit claimant market know perfectly well that they are recieving money from claimants Job Seekers Allowance.
I have came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the rate of Job Seekers Allowance. The problem is greedy landlords and the lack of council housing.
These calculations are based on a single person.
I got these figures from a mate who is a ultra frugal hippie.
Council Tax: £3.60 (Single occupants only pay 75% of the bill and Benefit Claimants get 75% of the amount due as Council Tax Benefit).
Broadband & Phone with Anytime calls: £4.62
Electricity £6.90
Gas £2.30
TV Licence £2.80
Water £2.77
Total £22.99
So excluding Rent there would be £49.01 left for food.
The problem is that those who claim housing benefit often pay more for their housing than the amount given in housing benefit. This means that private landlords who provide for the benefit claimant market know perfectly well that they are recieving money from claimants Job Seekers Allowance.
I have came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the rate of Job Seekers Allowance. The problem is greedy landlords and the lack of council housing.
Greedy landlords?
Landlords charge the market rate, they can't charge more or it wouldn't be let......
The problem is about 4 million houses need to be built with at least 25% of those needing to be 'social housing'.
Original post by paul514
Greedy landlords?
Landlords charge the market rate, they can't charge more or it wouldn't be let......
The problem is about 4 million houses need to be built with at least 25% of those needing to be 'social housing'.
Landlords charge the market rate, they can't charge more or it wouldn't be let......
The problem is about 4 million houses need to be built with at least 25% of those needing to be 'social housing'.
The thing is this. If there was no housing benefit there wouldn't be a price floor for the free market of rental accommodation. The market rate is kept up by welfare programs.
If we where to ban housing benefit to be used on private property then the rental market would go right down.
How is it that social housing has been maintained all these years though meager rents and private housing demands excessive rents and is in a worse condition with damp and mold.
The answer is speculation and greed.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by illegaltobepoor
The thing is this. If there was no housing benefit there wouldn't be a price floor for the free market of rental accommodation. The market rate is kept up by welfare programs.
If we where to ban housing benefit to be used on private property then the rental market would go right down.
How is it that social housing has been maintained all these years though meager rents and private housing demands excessive rents and is in a worse condition with damp and mold.
The answer is speculation and greed.
If we where to ban housing benefit to be used on private property then the rental market would go right down.
How is it that social housing has been maintained all these years though meager rents and private housing demands excessive rents and is in a worse condition with damp and mold.
The answer is speculation and greed.
Nope still wrong.
Your whole statement is on the proposition that you can stop housing benefit for these people being used for private rents......
You can't as there is no where near enough social housing due to the governments of the 80's onwards not reinvesting in social housing as council homes were sold off.
Even if you could do that the floor price of rental accommodation still wouldn't drop much as it is the same sort of accommodation that students and low skilled immigrants live in and we have hundreds of thousands of extra of the latter per year.
Original post by illegaltobepoor
I have a better idea. Abolish the TV licence. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 survive without funding so why can't the BBC?
While I have toyed with the idea before, I'm pretty sure a good majority of the public doesn't want the BBC to have to resort to advertising to fund itself. It certainly couldn't produce all the entertainment that it produces currently with ad revenue alone.
And please don't skirt around the issue. If people choose to throw money away on luxuries by conscious choice, they can't really ask for much sympathy.
I would like to see a reform of the TV licence, possibly turning the BBC into a subscription service whereby those who pay the licence fee are able to view it and those who don't aren't able to view it. Simple. Of course, you'll first need the public to agree, and that's never going to happen. So, for now, the single mothers and the disabled will have to refrain from signing contracts with terms that they will struggle to meet.
Original post by illegaltobepoor
Well costs can be argued. It depends where you live and the services available to you. I hope we can agree on that. The fact of the matter is you can live on £72 a week IF your in a area where rent prices are affordable in relation to the amount a person gets in housing benefit.
By the way did you leave the Job Centre or was you sacked?
By the way did you leave the Job Centre or was you sacked?
£72/week would be luxury, frankly. Even taking into account the fact I'd have to pay some of my rent.
I left partly because I moved house (got an offer of a better job elsewhere) but it was a temporary thing anyway so I wouldn't have stayed on for more than a week more anyway. The type of work I was doing mostly involved helping claimants use the computers but also included general office stuff. I know how the system works because I've been through it. I still am on benefits, but my job means I don't really need to be actively looking for work as much.
Original post by Manitude
£72/week would be luxury, frankly. Even taking into account the fact I'd have to pay some of my rent.
I left partly because I moved house (got an offer of a better job elsewhere) but it was a temporary thing anyway so I wouldn't have stayed on for more than a week more anyway. The type of work I was doing mostly involved helping claimants use the computers but also included general office stuff. I know how the system works because I've been through it. I still am on benefits, but my job means I don't really need to be actively looking for work as much.
I left partly because I moved house (got an offer of a better job elsewhere) but it was a temporary thing anyway so I wouldn't have stayed on for more than a week more anyway. The type of work I was doing mostly involved helping claimants use the computers but also included general office stuff. I know how the system works because I've been through it. I still am on benefits, but my job means I don't really need to be actively looking for work as much.
Is this universal credit open to freelancers btw?
Original post by illegaltobepoor
Is this universal credit open to freelancers btw?
I believe it would be, yes, but whether you receive UC rather than JSA currently depends on your location, age and other factors. I happen to live in one of the areas that they've introduced it first. Over the next few years JSA will be phased out and replaced with UC. It's a much better system as it rolls multiple benefits (JSA, housing benefit, income support etc) into one meaning that it's significantly less faff if you have a part time job or casual work where you've no idea when your next pay cheque will come through. It's designed to be flexible and such that "you will always be better off in work".
Original post by paul514
Greedy landlords?
Landlords charge the market rate, they can't charge more or it wouldn't be let......
The problem is about 4 million houses need to be built with at least 25% of those needing to be 'social housing'.
Landlords charge the market rate, they can't charge more or it wouldn't be let......
The problem is about 4 million houses need to be built with at least 25% of those needing to be 'social housing'.
This is quite simply an example of the "free market" producing a grotesquely inflated parody of a market-clearing rate because the supply side has been choked by successive New Labour and Thatcherite Tory governments buying votes from their home-owning and landlord clientele.
It would be quite nice if we could figure out some other way of making money in this country than selling each other the same houses over and over again and having the government tax working people to pay rents to those same working people's private landlords.
In London, we firstly need to mobilise the several thousand acres of undeveloped land held by public bodies for the immediate provision of social housing.
We need to open up brownfield and some greenfield sites to development by not-for-profit bodies like housing associations.
We need to reinstate the squatting laws so that empty apartments owned in absentia by Arab oil sheikhs, the Russian mafia and Chinese Communist Party mandarins can be put to a better use than money laundering.
We need to cease the advertising of such properties at investment fairs in said countries prior to offering them in the native British market.
We need to impose a use it or lose it rule on land banking property developers.
Following the excellent moves of the SNP against their land barons, we need to conduct a comprehensive cadastral survey from Land's End to Berwick-upon-Tweed in order to find out who exactly it is that owns the land and what they use it for, if anything.
We need to abolish the majority of taxes levied on working people and small businesses and transfer them to a Georgist land tax, coupled with a system of reliefs to encourage development in strategically important infrastructure such as renewable and nuclear energy installations, high-speed trains etc.
The voting public need to wake up and realise that no, their house isn't really worth hundred and hundreds of thousands of pounds and no, they do not have a right to buy to let and literally have a working tenant buy them a house over twenty years while demanding a month-to-month profit and offsetting mortgage interest payments against tax on top.
Original post by Hydeman
While I have toyed with the idea before, I'm pretty sure a good majority of the public doesn't want the BBC to have to resort to advertising to fund itself. It certainly couldn't produce all the entertainment that it produces currently with ad revenue alone.
And please don't skirt around the issue. If people choose to throw money away on luxuries by conscious choice, they can't really ask for much sympathy.
I would like to see a reform of the TV licence, possibly turning the BBC into a subscription service whereby those who pay the licence fee are able to view it and those who don't aren't able to view it. Simple. Of course, you'll first need the public to agree, and that's never going to happen. So, for now, the single mothers and the disabled will have to refrain from signing contracts with terms that they will struggle to meet.
And please don't skirt around the issue. If people choose to throw money away on luxuries by conscious choice, they can't really ask for much sympathy.
I would like to see a reform of the TV licence, possibly turning the BBC into a subscription service whereby those who pay the licence fee are able to view it and those who don't aren't able to view it. Simple. Of course, you'll first need the public to agree, and that's never going to happen. So, for now, the single mothers and the disabled will have to refrain from signing contracts with terms that they will struggle to meet.
It's quibbling over a couple of quid a week here. Are disabled people just to stare at the wall all day? With the question of the TV licence we ask ourselves whether benefits should be rags and gruel subsistence or include room for basic entertainment to keep one sane, as well as connected to the outside world.
The BBC is necessary and in my view keeps our television relatively civilised and raises standards. Even as it is ITV is pretty mind-numbing tat and Channel 4 is getting worse. Even Sky, the costliest of subscription services, is nine hundred channels of rubbish plus a few sports and movies.
The TV licence is a tax of a couple of quid a week if you have a TV. If you're that bothered don't watch it at all.
The thing is I bet everyone quibbling about the TV licence has Sky to watch the football. Had the BBC kept the football, people could have seen it for two quid a week rather than Sky at five times the price. It astounds me that people care more about supposedly having "freedom" to watch the football on the one expensive package which offers it than about how much money it ultimately costs. Such is the folly of many attempts at making a free market of things when the market becomes dominated by a monopolist.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Sheffield vs cardiff vs bristol
- Room in international hall (university of London intercollegiate hall) wanted!
- Life at Herts - Everything Apart from the Studying!
- Make it More Breakfast-ey !!
- London accommodation needed
- Birmingham vs Manchester vs London - which one is safer?
- Looking for student to take over my tenancy contract
- Self-catered vs Catered accommodation at Bath
- SQE2
- University of Roehampton Accommodation
- IQ Arcade accommodation 42 week £236 £££ on top
- Urgent need london student accommodation
- Urgent tenancy takeover asap
- Why are rents so high
- Aberystwyth vs city uni london
- Uni of Bristol vs Manchester (Mathematics)
- 23/24 IQ arcade tenancy takeover 42 week length £236pw
- Small questions on Cardiff Uni accommodation (I have no idea what I am doing help me)
- SQE2 prep course ULaw vs Barbri for SQE2 April 2023
- University of EXETER accomodation
Latest
Trending
Last reply 10 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 10 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
