We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!
Comments
-
Deepmistrust wrote: »And up he squeaks to prove my point
Even you can see that, that ^ is about the extent of any contribution to this that you are capable of?
Squeak Squeak!!0 -
I never said I was going, but what else to expect from you.
I said I didn't feel the need to reply to your comments, but on that (and this occasion) I did.
Why does everything need explaining to you over and over again?
And again! That's two more posts you've responded to since you chucked your dummy out.
Not very good at this "I'm ignoring you ner ner ner ner" lark are you?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »And again! That's two more posts you've responded to since you chucked your dummy out.
Not very good at this "I'm ignoring you ner ner ner ner" lark are you?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
As I said near the start of your rants, you are only here to argue and will do anything to have the final word.
You are just a troll. Pathetic really. :money:0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »And again! That's two more posts you've responded to since you chucked your dummy out.
Not very good at this "I'm ignoring you ner ner ner ner" lark are you?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Professional my !!!!!!!!!0 -
As I said near the start of your rants, you are only here to argue and will do anything to have the final word.
You are just a troll. Pathetic really. :money:
LMAO, your last refuge.
How to avoid looking like you've lost an argument Rule Number 84:
84. When all else fails, call your opponent a Troll.:rotfl::rotfl:All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »I have no idea what you think job seekers actually receive?
It's in the region of £65 which has to feed, clothe, them and meet their utility bills, perhaps their rent and mortgage (if they do not qualify for maximum or any assistance), and to transport them to and from job interviews.
Perhaps we could just give them sandwiches and blankets and be done with it?
Yes they can get up to £65 a week in JSA, however they may also get things like Council Tax benefit, Housing Benefit/LHA (if renting), possible they might have mortgage interest being paid to lender, free prescriptions, school meals, if they have kids maybe child tax credits etc etc.
Heres an example, 1 adult claiming JSA with 1 dependant child.
Entitlement per year per week
Tax Credits £2,850.65 £54.67
Tax Credits £2,850.65 £54.67 Child tax credit.
JSA £3,412.75 £65.45 JSA (income-based)
Means-tested bill reductions
Council Tax Benefit £1,092.91 £20.96 You should not have to pay Council Tax.
Housing Benefit £9,899.84 £189.86
Other income entitlements
Child Benefit £1,058.50 £20.30
Total Entitlements £18,314.65 £351.24 weekly
The staff processing JSA claims outside of london for the DWP get paid less then this.
Its tax free so effectively have an income in the region of £26,000.0 -
Yes they can get up to £65 a week in JSA, however they may also get things like Council Tax benefit, Housing Benefit/LHA (if renting), possible they might have mortgage interest being paid to lender, free prescriptions, school meals, if they have kids maybe child tax credits etc etc.
Heres an example, 1 adult claiming JSA with 1 dependant child.
Entitlementper yearper weeknotesMeans-tested income entitlementsTax Credits-Initial Tax Credit£2,850.65£54.67 Tax Credits£2,850.65£54.67Child tax credit. JSA£3,412.75£65.45
Means-tested bill reductionsCouncil Tax Benefit£1,092.91£20.96You should not have to pay Council Tax
Housing Benefit£9,899.84£189.86
Other income entitlementsChild Benefit£1,058.50£20.30 Total Entitlements£18,314.65£351.24 weekly
The staff processing JSA claims outside of london for the DWP get paid less then this.
Its tax free so effectively have an income in the region of £26,000.
That's why I wrote:
"It's in the region of £65 which has to feed, clothe, them and meet their utility bills, perhaps their rent and mortgage (if they do not qualify for maximum or any assistance), and to transport them to and from job interviews."
I was specifically refering to what the £65 was to cover. I not only omitted any housing benefits, I omitted housing costs too - in the assumption one would cancel out the other.
The £65 is to cover the items I put already. An oyster card in London to attend interviews several times a week could cost at least £20 alone.
With regards to housing costs, the reason I put "perhaps rent and morgage costs" is because not every scenario will meet all or any of their housing costs: It's also likely if they have a mortgage that they won't qualify for HB even on the interest in many cases. And even if they do, they may have a 9 month wait for that to kick in. Or perhaps before becoming unemployed they rented a two-bed property to be told that the property assessed by HB rules will only cover part of the rent.
If the person also has a dependant, yes they will also get £50ish pounds a week ctc. But then they will have an additional person to feed/clothe etc too.
The point is that on JSA, a person can hardly be described as living the high life as some people seem to think they are. If they are savvy and thrifty enough to save up for a holiday or a tv - then good for them.
In addition the DWP staff getting paid less than this, will (in the same personal circumstances) also be entitled to CTC(maybe WTC dependant on salary)childcare help, and childbenefit too.
In fact assuming 1 DWP staff on £22k per year 1 dependant:
Period:06/04/2010-05/04/2011annual £ weekly £ Initial Tax Credit award for period:£5,540.75£106.26Working Tax Credit:£2,690.10£51.59Child Tax Credit:£2,850.65£54.67 Final Tax Credit award for period:£5,540.75£106.26Working Tax Credit:£2,690.10£51.59Child Tax Credit award:£2,850.65£54.67
Effectively increasing weekly income by £126.56 per week. or £6581 per annum. (Also tax free).
Incidentally which LA did you put in that pays £189 per week for a two bed? Only you're refering to DWP workers outside London, so I assume consistancy in the comparison, but a random search shows that LHA for a 2 bed even in cities like Manchester only pay £126 per week.
And incidentally according to online tax calculator, even using the extremes of £189 LHA to get to £18.3k per year equates to just under £25k per year taxed.
So even on the assumption Jobseeker + dependant can receive as much as £189 LHA per week, total in benefits come to the equivalent of just under £25k per year. More realistically is that in many parts of the country they would not receive anything like this for LHA for a two bed private rent (I can only find boroughs in London that go that high?).All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »That's why I wrote:
"It's in the region of £65 which has to feed, clothe, them and meet their utility bills, perhaps their rent and mortgage (if they do not qualify for maximum or any assistance), and to transport them to and from job interviews."
I was specifically refering to what the £65 was to cover. I not only omitted any housing benefits, I omitted housing costs too - in the assumption one would cancel out the other.
Well Liam & Percy will certainly pick it up. You did not assume one would cancel the other out.
The £65 is to cover the items I put already. An oyster card in London to attend interviews several times a week could cost at least £20 alone.
There lies the problem - many could easily put their net income is £40pw which could be perfectly true if they deduct housing and council tax costs first. The vast majority claiming benefits also claim housing and council tax - it is the singles living with family who truely only get £65pw. It also makes it difficult for you to then understand different points of view.
With regards to housing costs, the reason I put "perhaps rent and morgage costs" is because not every scenario will meet all or any of their housing costs: It's also likely if they have a mortgage that they won't qualify for HB even on the interest in many cases. And even if they do, they may have a 9 month wait for that to kick in. Or perhaps before becoming unemployed they rented a two-bed property to be told that the property assessed by HB rules will only cover part of the rent.
Agree housing costs are not based on what they live in but what they are deemed to require. You cannot get a mortgage paid by housing benefits - interest is paid at a fixed rate under another scheme which may or may not cover the actual interest due. I understood this to begin after 13 weeks (it changed last year).
If the person also has a dependant, yes they will also get £50ish pounds a week ctc. But then they will have an additional person to feed/clothe etc too.
As part of a couple it is a total between them of £102.75pw plus possibly housing benefit, council tax, tax credits, free this that and the other. Tax credits and child benefit may be payable for a child.
The point is that on JSA, a person can hardly be described as living the high life as some people seem to think they are. If they are savvy and thrifty enough to save up for a holiday or a tv - then good for them.
The ones who do this usually have a number of children.
In addition the DWP staff getting paid less than this, will (in the same personal circumstances) also be entitled to CTC(maybe WTC dependant on salary)childcare help, and childbenefit too.
Agree.
In fact assuming 1 DWP staff on £22k per year 1 dependant:
More likely to be £13K to a maximum of £18K.
Period:06/04/2010-05/04/2011annual £ weekly £ Initial Tax Credit award for period:£5,540.75£106.26Working Tax Credit:£2,690.10£51.59Child Tax Credit:£2,850.65£54.67 Final Tax Credit award for period:£5,540.75£106.26Working Tax Credit:£2,690.10£51.59Child Tax Credit award:£2,850.65£54.67
You must have put childcare costs in to get those figures.
Effectively increasing weekly income by £126.56 per week. or £6581 per annum. (Also tax free).
Apart from pay being well overstated, you have to deduct childcare costs.
Incidentally which LA did you put in that pays £189 per week for a two bed? Only you're refering to DWP workers outside London, so I assume consistancy in the comparison, but a random search shows that LHA for a 2 bed even in cities like Manchester only pay £126 per week.
And incidentally according to online tax calculator, even using the extremes of £189 LHA to get to £18.3k per year equates to just under £25k per year taxed.
So even on the assumption Jobseeker + dependant can receive as much as £189 LHA per week, total in benefits come to the equivalent of just under £25k per year. More realistically is that in many parts of the country they would not receive anything like this for LHA for a two bed private rent (I can only find boroughs in London that go that high?).
Cannot comment over where the rent came from.
When you do compare like for like, you find that often the worker is getting less or marginally more for doing a full-time job. Now do you see why so many support workfare instead of signing on just once a fortnight?0 -
Lizzie,
The scenario killmark created was based up two workers (one unemployed) and one employed by the DWP.
"Well Liam & Percy will certainly pick it up. You did not assume one would cancel the other out."
I have no idea where either Bill or Ben come into this? Yes, I did work on the assumption that HB benefits didn't need included in the £65, as I was purely showing what the £65 was needed to be spent on. (Possibly some of the £65 is used to top up rent, but any HB, will not impact on the fact that a jobseeker still has just the £65 in order to eat, cloth and pay his utilities) The point is that £65 is what a single person has to live on each week to feed, clothe, pay bills and fares with. Not abject poverty, but not the high life either.
"There lies the problem - many could easily put their net income is £40pw which could be perfectly true if they deduct housing and council tax costs first. The vast majority claiming benefits also claim housing and council tax - it is the singles living with family who truely only get £65pw. It also makes it difficult for you to then understand different points of view."
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say (Highlighted section).
A person living in accomodation they had when they were employed may be of higher rents that LHA is willing to pay, or they may have a mortgage which is not covered for 9 months (if at all). So they MAY have to factor in rent costs too in their £65 per week. Even singles living with family may be expected to contribute to their rent and board.
"As part of a couple it is a total between them of £102.75pw plus possibly housing benefit, council tax, tax credits, free this that and the other. Tax credits and child benefit may be payable for a child. "
Killmark set the scenario of one adult and one dependant. It's not possible to add another adult to the JSA example, without also adding another adult to the DWP staff example, which itself increases the financial position of the DWP worker.
"The ones who do this usually have a number of children."
Save for a telly? Childless people don't save for TV's?
"More likely to be £13K to a maximum of £18K."
Unimportant. I was quoting a salary many DWP workers could earn. Besides lowering their salary increases their other benefits, like WTC etc, may even qualify them for hb themselves. And grants them up to 80% of childcare costs paid.
"You must have put childcare costs in to get those figures."
Don't believe so (?), not even sure if a salary of 22k qualifies for 80% childcare (?).
Plus could argue that even JSA person may need childcare for interviews, or training. Not sure who would assist him with childcare?
"Apart from pay being well overstated, you have to deduct childcare costs."
Not overstated at all, the calculator stated £54.67 CTC, £51.59 WTC and £20.30 CB. Total £126.56
Already mentioned childcare (^)
"Cannot comment over where the rent came from. "
It's actually quite important to the calculations, as it makes up nearly £10k of the total benefits of £18k. A more realistic amount (outside London) can be as low as £70 in some places. Which would knock of over £6k from JSA persons 'benefits'.
"When you do compare like for like, you find that often the worker is getting less or marginally more for doing a full-time job. "
Even using the extreme of £189 LHA, the actually amount awarded to JSA recipient in the original example is still several thousand pounds less than that of the DWP worker. Even factoring in all of the new scenarios you have set up, such as a lower wage - which would result in an increase in top up benefits anyway - still clearly shows it is better to be in paid employment, than unemployed.
"Now do you see why so many support workfare instead of signing on just once a fortnight? "
This has nothing to do with workfare, this scenario is dealing with a jobseeker (i.e. someone seeking work), who for whatever reason has become unemployed. Not about someone who is actively avoiding work.
The point throughout, was not even to compare the two, but to merely counter the logic that people on JSA are living the high life. (After all this was in response to a post that suggests that the unemployed shouldn't have luxuries like playstations or holidays etc etc) That isn't to say a low paid worker (earning 13k pa) working at the DWP is living the high life either. One not living the high life, does not imply therefore that the other must be.
All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
Lizzie,
The scenario killmark created was based up two workers (one unemployed) and one employed by the DWP.
Agree
"Well Liam & Percy will certainly pick it up. You did not assume one would cancel the other out."
I have no idea where either Bill or Ben come into this? Yes, I did work on the assumption that HB benefits didn't need included in the £65, as I was purely showing what the £65 was needed to be spent on. Included in the £65 as I said may well possibly be a top up rent payment (or mortgage required) if HB didn't (as often happens) cover all their rent or mortgage payments (as is quite likely, in many cases). It may also be the case that the HB cancels out the rent. Hence then there would be no need to figure rent into the £65 (which is why I said "may" have to pay top up rent). The point is that £65 is what a single person has to live on each week to feed, clothe, pay bills and fares with. Not abject poverty, but not the high life either.
You have nitpicked with Liam & Percy to the point I thought this would be in DT by now. Yes you've had some back too. I know what you were getting at, I was commenting that you had left yourself open because of 1 statement saying you had ignored both HB & rent when in fact you hadn't.
"There lies the problem - many could easily put their net income is £40pw which could be perfectly true if they deduct housing and council tax costs first. The vast majority claiming benefits also claim housing and council tax - it is the singles living with family who truely only get £65pw. It also makes it difficult for you to then understand different points of view."
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say (Highlighted section).
A person living in accomodation they had when they were employed may be of higher rents that LHA is willing to pay, or they may have a mortgage which is not covered for 9 months (if at all). So they MAY have to factor in rent costs too in their £65 per week. Even singles living with family may be expected to contribute to their rent and board.
You don't understand what I was saying - I can tell that by your comments. I was not comparing the exact scenario given, I was comparing what a worker could say they earn (net real earnings less housing and council tax) and you know from the example I gave earlier that workers can be worse off.
"As part of a couple it is a total between them of £102.75pw plus possibly housing benefit, council tax, tax credits, free this that and the other. Tax credits and child benefit may be payable for a child. "
Killmark set the scenario of one adult and one dependant. It's not possible to add another adult to the JSA example, without also adding another adult to the DWP staff example, which itself increases the financial position of the DWP worker.
I couldn't work out what you were using here - you meant tax credits in Killmark's example?
"The ones who do this usually have a number of children."
Save for a telly? Childless people don't save for TV's?
The type of TVs mentioned in the last couple of days suggested we were still on the expensive plasma's. Judging by the state of the economy and personal debt, I guess a lot are still paying the plastic friend for these.
"More likely to be £13K to a maximum of £18K."
Unimportant. I was quoting a salary many DWP workers could earn. Besides lowering their salary increases their other benefits, like WTC etc, may even qualify them for hb themselves. And grants them up to 80% of childcare costs paid.
A lower salary plus CTC/WTC will never be the same as a higher salary plus CTC/WTC - that is one thing that did add up. Having said that, childcare can mess it up. The figure is important if you are following an example.
"You must have put childcare costs in to get those figures."
Don't believe so (?), not even sure if a salary of 22k qualifies for 80% childcare (?).
Plus could argue that even JSA person may need childcare for interviews, or training. Not sure who would assist him with childcare?
22K salary with no childcare compared to 22K salary with childcare will never give an increase of 80% of childcare costs.
Childcare under tax credits only applies where WTC can be claimed - would not apply to unemployed (or workers who use childcare essentially but do not qualify due to hours).
Plus see below as the figures are totally wrong if you did not specify any childcare.
"Apart from pay being well overstated, you have to deduct childcare costs."
Not overstated at all, the calculator stated £54.67 CTC, £51.59 WTC and £20.30 CB. Total £126.56
Already mentioned childcare (^)
You must have input a childcare amount, otherwise you would have got nil WTC and a much lower CTC.
"Cannot comment over where the rent came from. "
It's actually quite important to the calculations, as it makes up nearly £10k of the total benefits of £18k. A more realistic amount (outside London) can be as low as £70 in some places. Which would knock of over £6k from JSA persons 'benefits'.
LHA at £70pw? That one must be unique.
"When you do compare like for like, you find that often the worker is getting less or marginally more for doing a full-time job. "
Even using the extreme of £189 LHA, the actually amount awarded to JSA recipient in the original example is still several thousand pounds less than that of the DWP worker. Even factoring in all of the new scenarios you have set up, such as a lower wage - which would result in an increase in top up benefits anyway - still clearly shows it is better to be in paid employment, than unemployed.
The figures you used?
The point throughout, was not even to compare the two, but to merely counter the logic that people on JSA are living the high life. (After all this was in response to a post that suggests that the unemployed shouldn't have luxuries like playstations or holidays etc etc) That isn't to say a low paid worker (earning 13k pa) working at the DWP is living the high life either. One not living the high life, does not imply therefore that the other must be.
You have ignored my question over workfare. Do you seriously think it is fair for some-one to receive what is effectively a wage for some without being pushed into community work, while others have to work 40 hours for the same or less?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.9K Spending & Discounts
- 246.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178K Life & Family
- 260.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards