A question for you all….

Hi all, I have had an email from someone who has asked a question…

One that certainly made me think…

They asked, Why people who are living in London (or other cities) – especially in the centres & have never worked, but are in Social Housing & in receipt of HB to enable them to keep that precious Social Housing, Shouldn’t (for the good of the people who do work & are in the lower income bracket) they be forced to move to the suburbs? So the cost of travel/home comes down for the workforce?

Now I am totally against Social Cleansing of any sort, BUT I also had to think about this, As I know the cost of travel & indeed the lack of available Social Housing is a major factor in why some LME’s (low / middle income earners) cant find work…

I know personally of Young parents who have never worked & yet have Social Housing properties in areas where work IS available…. Does this mean they shouldnt be offered this housing? Does this mean they should only have it if they have contributed (financially) at some point? Does this mean that young parents will have to wait longer (unless they have had work experience before working)?

Now before anyone gets angry at me, I am saying parents, as this was definitely where this angry email was aimed…

The young benefit claiming parents… (it didnt matter that benefit recipients can be any one) .

Personally I think the question of why don’t the absent parents contribute more should be addressed – BUT that’s a whole other can of worms….

It also didn’t seem to matter to the emailer that only 67% of Housing Benefit claimants were in Socially Housed properties, YET the cost of this bill is almost equal to the cost of the other 33% (which is going into the pockets of UNCAPPED rentals in the private sector).

I also wondered why the question wasn’t firstly asked of single people who claim Housing Benefit – of which there are 2.2 million. My thought was – why ask those 1.75 million who are bringing up the future of this country to move out of towns cities (which are important for social skills etc for  the children), yet totally ignore the growing number of single people claiming benefit. (most of which is “passported benefit” ie:

What are passported benefits?

Passported benefits are benefits or schemes which some groups of people are entitled to because of their entitlement to certain benefits or tax credits. Benefits and tax credits which can passport you to other benefits or schemes include:
– Income Support
– Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based)
– Employment and Support Allowance (income-related)
– Pension Credit (Guarantee credit)
– Child Tax Credit

What can I get?

If you, or your partner, are in receipt of one of the above benefits you will be eligible for:
– full Council Tax Benefit based on your liability,
– full Housing Benefit based on your eligible rent*, and
– full Child Tax Credit if you have dependent children you recieve child benefit for.

You will not need to provide proof of any other income or capital while you are entitled to any passported benefits but you must advise the DWP straight away, if any of the benefits end.

I actually didn’t realise that there was an automatic entitlement to a benefit based on the fact “you get one – you get the other” & I have to say – it doesn’t sit well with me, especially for those of the younger end of the claimants who are single…

So back from those cans of worms & onto my thoughts, Would this help our economy?

Possibly – IF & only IF the “move if you wont work” scheme was not selective… If it covered everyone who claimed Housing Benefit.

BUT also in my own experience, Whether i work or not is of no consequence to the bigotry I experience almost daily, just due to my housing status. So it wouldn’t help that aspect at all.

Also What if the Socially Housed person lost their job… would you want them “moved away” – How would that help them & their family?

I think in these days when rents are skyrocketing (some parts of London will have over a  50% rise in the next 8 years) with salaries nowhere near comparable; something should be done… However just STOPPING benefits & leaving people to languish in poverty is NOT the answer – What do you think?

Please let me know below or on

Facebook   or TWITTER

What do you think????


This entry was posted in Second Class and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A question for you all….

    The point is that Child Support from the partner who does not have the child does not count as income!!! Now if you have 2 children with 2 different fathers paying £200 each per month then the person on benefits can pocket that money and get full housing benefit. So they get £400 per month plus Child Benefit, Child Tax credit, Income support/What ever benefit they are on and Housing benefit and council tax paid………… Now that adds up to quite a bit……….. Yes the money is supposed to be for the children but shouldn’t some of this money be counted as income? Yes I may get throttled for this comment, but when you see a parent with 4 children (single) then is not about time this was looked at? I am, believe it or not a true socialist, I hate and detest what this government are doing (and I marched on Saturday) and it is time for people to think and remember these times at the next election and vote Labour. Please also remember, some parents do not get any support from the child’s fathers so do not judge everyone…………. People who live in social housing should value what they have as soon it could be taken away, after all that’s what Ian Duncan Smith wants……….. And then we will all live in workhouses (those who are sick and unemployed) Who says we are not going back in time????

  2. My Response (again on Facebook) – Please let me know your thoughts! ———–
    Child support isn’t income though is it – Or am I a bit silly – That’s to support a life the parents BOTH created?
    Also, the average Child support payment is (if the absent parent is actually paying) when the absent parent is on benefits (& lets be fair, that’s who we are aiming this at) is £15 per month & that goes to the government to counter the lone parents benefits.
    If the Child support actually gets to the lone parent, it is for the lone parents added responsibilities that the absent parent walked away from/left however it can be reduced (from the meagre amount that they absolutely have to pay thanks to the CSA rigmarole) – IE: if the absent parent would like to reduce the amount they pay, the answer is fairly simple. Have the children/child regularly overnight & your monetary contribution would reduce by percentages equal to number of nights their responsibilities as a parent are met.
    Many single parents would be happier with this rather than money…
    Now I have that off my chest (also I agree many of us don’t get support from absent parents / have had to fight for the bare minimum support).
    With regards to Social Housing tenants valuing their homes, how do you know they don’t?
    My neighbours “assumed” that after 16 years of me being a typical working family (Mum, dad, 3 children & dog) – when my husband left I was then immediately the person you describe above – regardless of the fact I never claimed single parent benefit/incomes support/job seekers etc etc… They also assumed my children immediately became “paid for” by large wads of cash from their fairly well off father (again totally untrue) or the welfare system (untrue).
    Where does the line draw Les? Should my children & the children of other men & women be immediately cast out from the secure homes just because an adult decides they don’t want the responsibility of looking after their offspring?
    I’m afraid I don’t agree at all. These children are the future of this country & sadly they, at the moment, don’t seem to have very good role models, in parents, governments & law makers…

Comments are closed.