One in three people would be unable to pay their rent or mortgage for more than a month if they lost their job, new figures from Shelter reveal.
One in three of us are potentially one paycheck away from homelessness, with a new survey showing that many people would be unable to pay their rent or mortgage for more than a month if they lost their job.
Families with children are living even more precariously, with almost half (43 per cent) admitting they could not pay for their home for more than a month, and nearly a quarter (23 per cent) saying they could not meet their payments at all, according to the figures released today by homeless charity Shelter.
Of those questioned:
- 35 per cent, equivalent to 8.6 million people, could not pay their rent or mortgage from their savings for more than a month.
- 18 per cent, equivalent to 4.4 million people, wouldn’t be able to pay their rent or mortgage at all if they couldn’t secure a new job immediately.
Shelter chief executive Campbell Robb said the figures painted “an alarming picture of a nation where the buffer between having a home and potentially becoming homeless is a single paycheque”.
“Millions are living on the edge of a crisis, only secure in their homes for a matter of weeks. At the same time, support for people who have lost their homes is being stripped away – it’s easy to see why every fifteen minutes, another family in England finds themselves homeless.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
5 Responses to “8 million people one paycheck away from homelessness”
OldLb
Now look at what the state is doing to them.
The total wealth of the UK is 7,000 bn.
The state debt is 7,000 bn.
The pensions debt alone is 5,300 bn. (ONS)
Poor people like this are screwed. Completely. The state can’t pay the pensions because the people of the UK can’t afford to. No pension, no welfare.
Look at Cyprus. 7% hit on just the bank accounts which are just a percentage of the wealth, and the economy is screwed.
Now think about the UK. What would happen here?
The are screwed because the state took their NI and taxes and gave to the likes of Philpott.
When they need the help, oh dear, the kitty is far from full, its empty.
SadButMadLad
Ooooh look, a charity doing some shroud waving in a desperate attempt to get some publicity for itself as it tries to get lots of donations. Not surprising that when in a recession fewer people are able to give money to a charity. They do reasonably well taking money from the taxpayer though, some £10m of their total £52m is from the government.
Look, it’s always been the case that millions have been a paycheck away from homelessness. Nothing new there. But it’s not an immediate loss of the home. Many will have insurance. Many will be able to negotiate with their mortgage company. Many will be able to go to the council and get some form of council home or emergency accomodation. Oh, wait there aren’t any council homes because the likes of Bob Crow are still living in them or you have bed blockers. Into this mixture of the many ways of avoiding or handling homelessness you have Shelter trying to get some business their way to justify their existence.
As to why people don’t have savings, that’ll be because of Thatcher won’t it. Yet Blair brought in ISAs and still people don’t save. So maybe it’s not because of a particular leader/government and because people just don’t save, full stop.
Dave Love
Philpott is an extreme, and not a fair example.
The Welfare State is a small fraction of the billions being either wasted or hoarded by financial institutions.
OldLb
Is he extreme?
3 adults, 17 children. 20 in total.
Philpott is far cheaper per head that 10 single mothers with one child each.
On the welfare state, put some numbers to it.
I’ll give you a starter.
1. Accumulated debts – 1,200 bn (the borrowing)
2. Pensions – 5,300 bn
3. PFI – 400 bn
4. Nuclear decomissioning 100 bn
….
That’s the accumulation of the welfare state. Well over 7,000 bn.
Assets? People? nope. 700 bn a year in spending, 550 bn generated in taxes. On average, a UK citizen is a liability.
Total wealth in the UK, including all the banking assets, is coincidently, 7,000 bn. So the ratio is the other way round.
Given banks are a percentage of the 7,000 bn, and they can’t waste all the money, there is no evidence that the welfare state is a small fraction of the waste.
In fact, if you look at guarantees paid out for losses by the government – zero – and taxes from the banking sector – 250 bn over 4 years, your claim doesn’t hold up at all.
What’s going on is that you’re looking for a scapegoat for the mess created by the state. Even the banking mess was caused by the traditional, people not repaying their loans problem. Government report – references if you want them.
Now post up some numbers. Put the evidence out there.
4 million in cash and servces, today’s value of money, to Philpot. Even more to single parents with one child each. Scale that up across the UK to get a handle on the numbers.
That’s your pension, spent. Now what?
Selohesra
Why do governments fund charitiies – surely charity should be for individuals. Isn’t a government funded charity just a Quango?