Can anyone explain the logic of this please?

Private landlords are taking the piss, but regulating that wouldn't help those who own their homes.

So what?
It would help renters. If home owners need help they need to make their case for that and have it treated separately.

Simply pouring out more Government money so that it can be paid to landlords sounds like a bad plan.

It means that money paid to people on benefits goes straight into the pockets of people who may own multiple properties.
Then people complain about people on benefits.

I dread to think how much has been paid out in rent for the ex council flat above me, to people who live elsewhere, do little maintenance, and rarely even visit.
£850 a month, a good few years ago.

The people on benefits don't gain anything out of it at all, because the amount paid actually to the person is the same, across the board.
All of them have had to spend a good amount of the money meant for them, to pay the "top up", since the amount of help they can get is capped.

FarNorth

^Private landlords are taking the piss, but regulating that wouldn't help those who own their homes.^

So what?
It would help renters. If home owners need help they need to make their case for that and have it treated separately.

Simply pouring out more Government money so that it can be paid to landlords sounds like a bad plan.

I think that everyone should be able to get help if they need it. I'm not saying that people should necessarily be able to get a house bought for them, but I see no reason why renters should have a safety net denied to those with mortgages.

A welfare state should provide for all citizens while they are unable to provide for themselves.

People with mortgages do get help though.

growstuff

Doodledog Please look at the details of eligibility for Universal Credit and the way it works. I'm not disputing that employers get away with paying as little as they can while paying as much as they need to get the staff they need. However, generally it is not the employers who benefit from their employees' Universal Credit. It wouldn't make any difference to employers, even if employees were paid more benefits. Hardly anybody receives the work allowance of Universal Credit - it's almost impossible for self-employed to receive any at all. It's a mistake to think people are being "topped up". The Universal Credit element most people receive is for rent. The Local Housing Allowance has just been raised (about time!), but that money is paid by the claimant to the landlord.

Obviously the employers don't benefit per se from UC but they are making larger profits by paying low wages. Where their poorly paid employees get their financial assistance from is of no importance to them whatsoever.

MissAdventure

People with mortgages do get help though.

Support for Mortgage Interest is paid by the Government if someone is prepared to jump through hoops but it is a loan on which interest is charged, which has to be repaid at some future date.

What help do they get with their mortgage MissAdventure?

Obviously the employers don't benefit per se from UC but they are making larger profits by paying low wages. Where their poorly paid employees get their financial assistance from is of no importance to them whatsoever.
Exactly

nadateturbe

What help do they get with their mortgage MissAdventure?

As said, they can claim for a loan to help with the interest.
Jumping through hoops, though, is quite usual for anyone needing financial help.

A loan to help with the interest part of a mortgage is not the same as getting help with rent, though. IMO, governments should help all claimants equally.

I’m not sure of the rules now, but years ago a friend of mine left an abusive husband and was not allowed to use her share of the equity when they sold the house on another mortgage, as she had custody of two babies and couldn’t work. It all had to be spent before she could get supplementary benefit as it was called then, so it was used on rent. It set her back years, and some temporary help to see her through until she was on her feet would have made a difference to her life and those of her children. Her ex, of course, used his share as a deposit on a new place, moved in a girlfriend and never looked back.

It's not the same situation, so people won't get exactly the same help.
Do you think we should pay people's mortgages?
There are people who would be only too happy to point out that people shouldn't have taken on a mortgage for others to end up footing the bill.

The loan is cheaper than a credit union one, as well as every other option, and in reality only needs paying back if the property is sold.

very little help, MissA. My AC is very clued in and knows what is available. Selling is not a good option, only option is to struggle on. This is the situation for many. Sometimes its hard for people with children working full time to stay optimistic with this government.
The private rental market is a big factor imo.

Yes, sadly the very little help option is reality, for home owners and renters alike.
Having to pay a huge amount out of the money meant for your everyday costs isn't easy either.

There isn't anyone who is getting loads of benefits, contrary to popular belief.

It's hard on everyone.

I was under the impression that private landlords don't like letting to anyone on benefits

MissAdventure

It means that money paid to people on benefits goes straight into the pockets of people who may own multiple properties.
Then people complain about people on benefits.

I dread to think how much has been paid out in rent for the ex council flat above me, to people who live elsewhere, do little maintenance, and rarely even visit.
£850 a month, a good few years ago.

The people on benefits don't gain anything out of it at all, because the amount paid actually to the person is the same, across the board.
All of them have had to spend a good amount of the money meant for them, to pay the "top up", since the amount of help they can get is capped.

yup loads of 'taxpayers money' is paid to landlords via housing benefit, no one gives a shiny shit about it do they?

I was always sceptical about the tax credit system when still living in the UK.

I would not agree that its the same the world over. I can only speak of my own experience. I live in Belgium
And the system is different. They have a government set wages index according to job, age and experience. There are no tax credits to top up low wages . There are no wages that are so low that people can't live on it. To be honest, I think people live rather well here, not such a rich poor divide.

It is wrong that wages are so low that these benefits are necessary. A complicated system.

growstuff

MaizieD

growstuff

Maizie NICs don't depend on the hours somebody works, but the amount.

Anybody earning £184 (or more) a week pays NICs. That works out to just over 20 hours a week on minimum wage. but would obviously be fewer hours if the person earned more.

I told you. I was working it out on 16 hours paid at the current minimum wage of £8.42 per hour. I am not altogether stupid you know.

But why are you obsessed with 16 hours? It's irrelevant with the current system.

PS. The current minimum wage for those 23 and over is £8.91 per hour.

Because someone was querying why people worked 16 hours.

Apologies for getting the minimum wage wrong, I must have been looking at out of date figures. I don't think that an extra 50p (ish) per hour will make enough difference to their income to put them into the NIC payment bracket. Will it?

We should look at the way other countries deal with supporting the poorest in society and learn how things might be done better.

The gulf between rich and poor in the UK is wider than almost any country in the developed world.

Such inequality breeds extreme politics and the manipulation of public opinion by the extremely wealthy through their control of the media, especially our predominantly right wing national press.

MissAdventure

It's not the same situation, so people won't get exactly the same help.
Do you think we should pay people's mortgages?
There are people who would be only too happy to point out that people shouldn't have taken on a mortgage for others to end up footing the bill.

The loan is cheaper than a credit union one, as well as every other option, and in reality only needs paying back if the property is sold.

Paying money towards rent is likely to be paying the landlord's mortgage though, so what's the difference?

I believe that there should be a better system of taxation, and people should be able to claim on NI when they need it. Fair enough, there should be checks and balances, but I don't see why some people should get help and others not, if both have paid tax and NI.

Who isn't getting help?
Anyone whose income falls below the allowed amount will and does get help.

As you say, people won't get exactly the same help. In my opinion, if they pay the same tax and NI (and I stress that I think the system needs to be reformed so that high earners pay more and low earners less than now) then they should get the same help, irrespective of whether they rent or pay a mortgage.

I firmly believe that the welfare state should be fair, equal and available to all who have paid in, with provision made for those who are unable to do so. I don't think that the government should decide who qualifies and who shouldn't, whether that is based on marital status, housing situation or whatever. Payments should be based on contributions, with no value judgements.

Surely that's contradictory?
Higher earners will get more under your system.
That isn't equality.
That's a value judgement.

Ooh.
I think I've read that wrong.
Apologies.

Still though, anyone who is out of work will be entitled to the same amount to live on, across the board.
Those who rent will get help towards it, those with a mortgage will get help towards that, with end result that both are housed, with the same amount to live on.

No worries

But one is a loan and the other non-returnable? If so, that is not equal.

The loan is only repaid when and if the property is sold on.
I have no idea what happens if it never is sold.
Yes, it doesn't seem fair, I agree.
As home owners, people are responsible for repairs, etc, which have to be paid for out of benefit money, which also doesnt sit right, if we want to go through each situation.
A renter would have the landlord to do running repairs and major ones.
Those who are 50p over the amount which qualifies them for benefits will miss out, too.

It's such a complex state of affairs these days.