Boom-time on benefits: The 140,000 families who claim £20,000 a year in handouts

Dustangle

PasturesNew wrote: »

This proliferation of benefits was promoted by the Govt to bring children out of poverty. All it did was give families more money.

This wicked, wicked government.

beingjdc

arcalis wrote: »

I've read some pretty sickening stuff on this forum and this is high up there with them. In your "dream world" whole sections of society were written off! Stick them in special schools, don't let them interact with society. Lets not give the disabled the same oppurtunities. You obviously have no concept of the workings of the benefits you speak of, ignorance is bliss, but even the ignorant can be attributed with empathy of which there is none in your post.

I could go on at some length about this as it's one of my work specialist subjects, however I will limit myself

I'm capable of being wrong, but I think that

1) Putting all children with disabilities in mainstream education doesn't work, and removing all children with disabilities from mainstream education doesn't work either. Swinging wildly from one policy to the other makes the problem worse.

2) Differentiating between physical disabilities, mental disabilities, and behavioural disabilities, and different degrees of each, would make the situation a lot clearer.

Sending a child who can't hope to learn into a class of average children is unfair on them. Sending a child who can't learn to behave is unfair on the other children. Meanwhile, sending a bright child who can't walk to a school for the mentally handicapped because all disabilities are lumped together is cruel and wasteful.

mewbie_2

arcalis wrote: »

I've read some pretty sickening stuff on this forum ....even the ignorant can be attributed with empathy of which there is none in your post.

I appreciate this is a very emotive subject, but please don't jump to conclusions about the poster so readily. I read PN's post several times, and it seems to be a simple statment of fact as she sees it. You may well see them differently, and like her, are entitled to express your reasons for that.

Certain people don't do empathy very well, I include myself in that number - its not so much we don't care as it's difficult to find that way of expressing things which comes apparently readily to others.

For the record - I could argue special schools v. integration from either angle for ever more, and not reach a sensible conclusion that fitted every instance.

mvengemvenge

Dustangle wrote: »

This wicked, wicked government.

I may be wrong, but I think PasturesNew meant that for some families it took away their incentive to come off benefits, made them dependant.

I was on the dole for years in the 80's, and it was incredibly hard to make the leap from benefits to work if you had kids. At least Tax Credits is a bit more incentive now, but people are still dependant on them.

treliac

PasturesNew wrote: »

This proliferation of benefits was promoted by the Govt to bring children out of poverty. All it did was give families more money.

It would have been worth it if it had taken children out of poverty. IMO it proves that poverty and deprivation are often nothing to do with income.

It's all been a rough deal for singles.

I empathise with you here. You're only classed as vulnerable, and in need of state assistance, if you have children, are old and infirm or disabled.

arcalis

beingjdc wrote: »

I could go on at some length about this as it's one of my work specialist subjects, however I will limit myself

I'm capable of being wrong, but I think that

1) Putting all children with disabilities in mainstream education doesn't work, and removing all children with disabilities from mainstream education doesn't work either. Swinging wildly from one policy to the other makes the problem worse.

2) Differentiating between physical disabilities, mental disabilities, and behavioural disabilities, and different degrees of each, would make the situation a lot clearer.

Sending a child who can't hope to learn into a class of average children is unfair on them. Sending a child who can't learn to behave is unfair on the other children. Meanwhile, sending a bright child who can't walk to a school for the mentally handicapped because all disabilities are lumped together is cruel and wasteful.

I agree completely..... you make complete sense. Any free thinking, unbiased person would think along similar lines.

It was not my post that grouped all into the same category but pastures new with

There was none of this DLA/carer business. If you had a sickly child of any sort and looked after them you'd still only get the standard child benefit money I believe

it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject of these benefits mentioned, linked with the title of this thread "Boom time on benefits" still sickens me. Aologies mewbie and co.

I know the system is not perfect and i wave no political flag on this subject but i still stand by the assertion of my last sentence in my last post.

PasturesNew

arcalis wrote: »

I've read some pretty sickening stuff on this forum and this is high up there with them. In your "dream world" whole sections of society were written off! Stick them in special schools, don't let them interact with society. Lets not give the disabled the same oppurtunities. You obviously have no concept of the workings of the benefits you speak of, ignorance is bliss, but even the ignorant can be attributed with empathy of which there is none in your post.

You read into it what you wanted to - and not what was there.

neverdespairgirl

mvengemvenge wrote: »

Hmmm......

Does this not count as a 'benefit'???

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/

"If you meet the requirements to receive support, you will be given suitable housing and your case owner will arrange for you to collect money from a post office near where you live. The money will enable you to buy essential things such as food, clothing and toiletries. If you do not require accommodation but need money for essential things, or you need accommodation but not money, we will be able to give you this partial support".

I'm no expert in this field, but I thought NASS gives both money and housing/shelter to non-EU asylum seekers until such a time that they can claim 'normal' benefits?

If I'm wrong, I apologise.

NASS isn't part of the benefits system. It's entirely separate, and it quite a bit less than income support. The accommodation is also dire, usually shared rooms, constantly moving around the country at short notice.

NASS only applies to asylum claimants, until such time as their claim is determined.

Other EU nationals, such as those coming on spouse / student / work visas don't have access to the benefits system at all, and public funds in this context includes public housing.

kim_ley

amcluesent wrote: »

"An astonishing 140,000 households are pocketing more in benefits than the average take-home wage.

The families are living on handouts worth in excess of £20,000 a year, official figures show. The enormous payouts dwarf the incomes of millions of hard-working families who are struggling to cope with the recession and the rising cost of living."

No wonder tax need to be sky-high for Clown to feed and water his block-vote.

Anyone still glad they studied, worked hard and tried to better themselves in Britain? No, thought not.

England is finished this time.

I think that this is extreme cases since my o/h was made redundant we get hardly anything!!!
We have a 2yo and a 12wko we get £30 pw cb £100 pw CTC and about £80pw JSA.
Which is under £11000 for the 4 of us!!
O/h may have to take a job which he is way over qualified for...
I am looking for work although I am reluctant as I am Breast feeding and would have to stop plus I couldn't stand to put a baby in nursery etc..
My 2yo starts nursery in September and I wanted to wait till my baby was that age too before going to work.
My o/h had a good job and he didn't get much in the way of redundancy pay!!!
We have not only to live on this until one/both of us gets a job but we also have to pay for all the things we had eg. contracts we cant get out of!!! (phone, tv, insurance) credit cards, car blah blah blah

I'm not feeling hard done by just wanted to say we dont all get that much? In Fact I don't understand how people do get that much????

I am not ashamed to be receiving benefits nor do I plan to live on them for much of 2009!!!

cheepskate_2

kim_ley wrote: »

I think that this is extreme cases since my o/h was made redundant we get hardly anything!!!
We have a 2yo and a 12wko we get £30 pw cb £100 pw CTC and about £80pw JSA.
Which is under £11000 for the 4 of us!!

But take into account community charge and rent (know most people buy now but if you were renting) and this would take you to about £17,000 NET still not added any tax or nic into this yet. ., this is not including your FREE school meals at least £5.00 per week per child (if needed) FREE school uniform , FREE dental care, FREE perscriptions. Also being low income allows other "benefits" that people earning the same amount would not receive.

This is why it makes it so easy for people to stay on the benefits, the government make the benefits so high that for unskilled workers this is far more than they can earn.

I used to work for wtc and i can assure you some of the figures that a lot of people were getting was shamfully so high that even I with my DH working used to think we were the poor ones.

The people that seem to be worst off is the middle earners £18,000 upwards, could actually work out that some p/t or ub40 people are better off than them as this is approx where the "help" ends