Renting is ruining people's lives

[kidley]

I'm looking disposable income for a single man or woman living alone and discounting housing benefit whic is not disposable income.

 

A lot of men and women over 50ish don't get anything at all because they have savings over £16,000

 

Here it is for a 40 year old person living in a 2 bedroomed

 

 

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator/results/Your_Calculation_Results.aspx?sid=4&cid=8e35b545-9deb-4843-8982-a06f70d6cf16&idk=90ef2913-1c48-4533-bf13-82b1ff49154f

[Tommo68]

Why is this directed at me,

 

Its not directed at you specifically kidley

 

please read the line that causes you offence once more.

 

I wrote; .....I'd like to add the following which is directed at those that share a similar viewpoint to the one that kidley expressed.

 

No offence to you was intended.

 

 

I know people that are unemployed and not through their own fault or choice, they struggle but do their best and of those that have kids their kids are better cared for than many others whose parent's are working and earning good money.

 

Which is why I hate to see sweeping generalisations.

 

Not that you made one of those kidley.

.

.

.

[kidley]

Cheers Tomm0 Thanks for your post

[Anna B]

Here it is for a 40 year old person living in a 2 bedroomed

 

 

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator/results/Your_Calculation_Results.aspx?sid=4&cid=8e35b545-9deb-4843-8982-a06f70d6cf16&idk=90ef2913-1c48-4533-bf13-82b1ff49154f

 

Thankyou Kidley. So according to those figures the claimant receives £72.40 per week disposable income (HB and council tax are not disposable income as the claimant never sees them.)

 

£500+ probably won't cover full council tax, and I doubt if £68 will cover the full cost of a house. (Even simple 1 bedroom flats near me are £90 a week.) So there are debts accruing from the outset.

 

I said £50 because most unemployed have debts. If they didn't have them in the first place (though most will - very few of us are completely debt free, even if it's only a mobile phone contract,) then they will have debts before very long. Sanctions bedroom tax and emergencies will see to that.

 

So I still maintain that it's not much to manage on, and depending on circumstances many can't. (I also appreciate that low paid workers also have problems in managing on paltry wages.)

[Cyclone]

It's not a lot, and it does require strict budgeting. But isn't that how it should be?

And if they have savings of >£16k, why should the state support them?

 

It's a safety net, not a comfortable way to live.

[Tommo68]

...............

And if they have savings of >£16k, why should the state support them?

 

It's a safety net, not a comfortable way to live.

 

You can look at that another way though.

 

2 people

A earns money and drinks it smokes it spends it like there's no tomorrow

 

B is conscintious earns money ans saves some.

 

You are saying when they both become unemployed through no fault of heir own that its Ok for A to get money off the state but not B.

 

You'd be removing B's motivation for being conscientious and saving whilst rewarding A for being a spendthrift.

 

Can't say I like your thinking.

.

.

[Cyclone]

I was describing how it IS, not how I think it should be.

 

Perhaps some specific forms of saving should be excluded, so as not to disincentivise them, pensions (already are excluded), maybe ISA savings should be as well, up to some certain limit.