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

cocktail

caveman38 wrote: »

probably true. as regards the polish and and the supposed tutorials for them on how to claim benefits. why not?? if they are entitled to it under EU law its still legal isn't it. the problem lies with the policies of the government.

Why not? I'll tell you why not. Because it is my and my 2 lads Income Tax / NI that pay for it and given a say we wouldn't want to lose 50% of our wages to support the rest of the world.[/quote]


exactly,and u and ur 2 lads will continue doing that. as long as the uk is in the EU,(very unlikely they can afford to will move away),this will be legal and there is no point in blaming the polish.
the problem is the system which can be manipulated by people weather they are british or polish.
there should be no benefit of any kind. people should earn their own living . if they cannot afford the lifestyle, then tough luck.

Lucky7-1985

mewbie wrote: »

I thought I'd do a minimal research on these amazing benefits. After all - why am I bothering to work?

So Express headline screams out £30,000 a year paid in benefits.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/77542/Thousands-of-unemployed-get-%A330,000-a-year/

A closer look.

A family of two healthy non-working adults and two healthy children paying rent of £100 a week and a monthly council tax bill of £108 could collect more than £16,100 a year in benefits.

That sum is made up of more than £4,700 in tax credits, £4,950 in Jobseeker’s Allowance, housing benefit of £5,214 and council tax benefit of £1,296.

So lets take rent and council tax off - after all even the unemployed have a right to shelter don't they? That actually leaves £9,650 for two adults and two kids to live on. £185 per week. £26.50 a day.

I think I'll carry on working for now. But maybe some of you lot complaining fancy swapping - after all it's easy money for doing nothing. Just think what you could do with £26.50 a day.

I earn £22,500 a year basic (I do also do over time) a good wage for a 23 year old, after tax i earn £1,420 a month, so after rent £750 and council tax of £112.50 (worked out over 12 month, I know I pay it over 10 months) = £1,420 - £750 - £112.50 = £557.5 I have a child so add tax credits and child benifit to that of £90 + £80 = £170 =£727.5 a month or £8730 a year or £23.92 a day. and out of this I have to pay petrol to get to work 20 miles away.

So I might as well give up work have another kid get made homeless and get a council house and live of benefits. and if I need more money have another child or work cash in hand.

I am not going to do this, my GF is going to work 20 hours a week now my son is 9 months old, I will continue working over time, this reason for this I can have pride that I have paid for my child, will buy a house one day.

I think the benefits system is a joke, i know of so many teenage girls who dont work have a child and have more money spare than me, and keep telling myself and my partner that we should be living apart, so my GF can get a free house.

Benefits should be a last resort, now a way of life where some poor person, only has £26 a day to live off what a joke.

treliac

mewbie wrote: »

I thought I'd do a minimal research on these amazing benefits. After all - why am I bothering to work?

So Express headline screams out £30,000 a year paid in benefits.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/77542/Thousands-of-unemployed-get-%A330,000-a-year/

A closer look.

A family of two healthy non-working adults and two healthy children paying rent of £100 a week and a monthly council tax bill of £108 could collect more than £16,100 a year in benefits.

That sum is made up of more than £4,700 in tax credits, £4,950 in Jobseeker’s Allowance, housing benefit of £5,214 and council tax benefit of £1,296.

So lets take rent and council tax off - after all even the unemployed have a right to shelter don't they? That actually leaves £9,650 for two adults and two kids to live on. £185 per week. £26.50 a day.

I think I'll carry on working for now. But maybe some of you lot complaining fancy swapping - after all it's easy money for doing nothing. Just think what you could do with £26.50 a day.

There are, however, still plenty of jobs that don't even pay that well and are still taxed on income. So if you couldn't earn that much and might have to pay towards child care as well, you might have a different opinion.

mewbie_2

Lucky7-1985 wrote: »

stuff

Thanks for your information. It just goes to show how one persons view is completely different to anothers. I have learnt something today.

PasturesNew

My current income (falling by the month) is equal to £50/month more than a single person on JSA with LHA/rent paid and CT.

treliac

It is my view that we have a system that's allowing many children to be born into appalling and unncessary disadvantage, even harm and possible death, which we have to face up to. It's not good enough to blame services - they are never going to be able to protect all children for many reasons, not least the fact that they can only have, at best, visiting contact with the families they are trying to support.

I believe that when a single mother-to-be asks for state assistance because she is unable to provide for herself or her baby, she should be given a place in 'supported accommodation,' a similar style to that which is available for older people. Staff would be on hand to provide a safe and secure environment for the mum and her child, to advise, support and assess her ability to care for her family and to minimise risk from exploitative boyfriends.

After a year or two, during which she would be able to plan for the future of her family, learn essential skills and demonstrate her ability to give her child/children a minimum level of care, she could move into independent living.

I would see such support as being available for both single mothers and couples and defined by need, i.e. they do not have the emotional or practical resources to achieve independence for themselves and their families. It is not good enough just to dish out benefits and leave it to chance, as happens now.

We have a society where too many parents have missed out on being parented themselves. If we are not prepared to invest in doing our best for these families in new and creative ways, we will never succeed in breaking the cycle of deprivation and society will never tackle the existing problems of disadvantage and move forward.

olly300

treliac wrote: »

It is my view that we have a system that's allowing many children to be born into appalling and unncessary disadvantage, even harm and possible death, which we have to face up to. It's not good enough to blame services - they are never going to be able to protect all children for many reasons, not least the fact that they can only have, at best, visiting contact with the families they are trying to support.

I believe that when a single mother-to-be asks for state assistance because she is unable to provide for herself or her baby, she should be given a place in 'supported accommodation,' a similar style to that which is available for older people. Staff would be on hand to provide a safe and secure environment for the mum and her child, to advise, support and assess her ability to care for her family and to minimise risk from exploitative boyfriends.

After a year or two, during which she would be able to plan for the future of her family, learn essential skills and demonstrate her ability to give her child/children a minimum level of care, she could move into independent living.

I would see such support as being available for both single mothers and couples and defined by need, i.e. they do not have the emotional or practical resources to achieve independence for themselves and their families. It is not good enough just to dish out benefits and leave it to chance, as happens now.

We have a society where too many parents have missed out on being parented themselves. If we are not prepared to invest in doing our best for these families in new and creative ways, we will never succeed in breaking the cycle of deprivation and society will never tackle the existing problems of disadvantage and move forward.

You mean:
1. More money from the taxpayer
2. More state intervention

Since some people on this thread and other threads have a problem with people receiving child benefit, regardless of the fact their mother was likely to have received it for them, this isn't going to be a vote winner.

Edited to say: In my local area a few years ago they wanted to trial a scheme where another older adult would help a disadvantaged mother with basic skills and support on a voluntary level. I don't think the scheme actually got of the ground due to the amount of commitment required by a volunteer on a one to one level.

treliac

olly300 wrote: »

You mean:
1. More money from the taxpayer
2. More state intervention

Since some people on this thread and other threads have a problem with people receiving child benefit, regardless of the fact their mother was likely to have received it for them, this isn't going to be a vote winner.

The first argument I have anticipated. Think about it - some of the massive costs we have as a society are due to the problems caused by disadvantage and everything it leads onto, for example the inability to support oneself as an adult, crime, etc. etc. If funding is targeted rather than freely given to be spent/wasted at will, IMO it's going to be far more effective and cost cutting in the long run.

Edited to say: In my local area a few years ago they wanted to trial a scheme where another older adult would help a disadvantaged mother with basic skills and support on a voluntary level. I don't think the scheme actually got of the ground due to the amount of commitment required by a volunteer on a one to one level.

There are Home-Start schemes nationwide. I'm not sure how 'successful' they are but don't think we can rely on volunteers and, again, they only offer intermittent contact, however frequent it might be.

olly300

treliac wrote: »

The first argument I have anticipated. Think about it - some of the massive costs we have as a society are due to the problems caused by disadvantage and everything it leads onto, for example the inability to support oneself as an adult, crime, etc. etc. If funding is targeted rather than freely given to be spent/wasted at will, IMO it's going to be far more effective and cost cutting in the long run.

I already agree with you.

I have already argued time and time again that it's far better for society and cheaper in the long term to give people proper help to make them independent rather than leave them languishing on benefits for years.

neverdespairgirl

mewbie wrote: »

I think I'll carry on working for now. But maybe some of you lot complaining fancy swapping - after all it's easy money for doing nothing. Just think what you could do with £26.50 a day.

You miss out other things people have to pay for if they are working - free presciptions and eye tests, school meals, etc.