Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

Deepmistrust

"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."

I never said I ignored them (as such) I said they would cancel each other out (so I didn't need to factor HB into his benefits, as if I had I would also have to factor paying his rent out of his benefits. I did neither (apart from merely point out that he MAY also have to pay top up rent from his £65 - i.e. if they didn't cancel out each other exactly). Hence I also clarified as such:
"I not only omitted any housing benefits, I omitted housing costs too - in the assumption one would cancel out the other" (In other words the only part of housing costs I didn't omit was those that MAY be not covered by HB). Logically it makes no sense to include one benefit that has to be paid out as an expense in full, when calculating what the £65 JSA has to be spent on.

Deepmistrust

"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."

You're taking this way off track. Now we are talking about what who could say?!
The post in question, that you responded to, was using Killmarks scenario, in which he was suggesting that a worker at the DWP in the SAME personal circumstances as a person on JSA could be better off. - His example didn't factor in that the DWP worker would also receive WTC/CTC and CB amounting to £6k in the same personal circumstances (Hence the reason WTC etc was implemented in the first place - to ensure that it was always going to be better off working). I genuinely have no idea where you are taking this? Both examples in the scenario have to be equivalent of each other. And I am sticking with facts, rather than what someone could "say" they are receiving. (i.e. what they ARE receiving - in this scenario).

"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."

I genuinely have no idea how this relates to the post in question? There is a lot of sidetracking going on here.

You must have input a childcare amount, otherwise you would have got nil WTC and a much lower CTC.

You're quite correct. I wasn't aware I did. Having changed it, here is the new award, which ironically increases the total benefits received, as now the DWP worker is also entitled to HB and CTC :-D. Increasing the whole award for the worker on £22k to £6,464 (inc Housing benefit, CTC and CB). Or maybe I missed out the rent the first time - either way, now the example is quite correct.

Deepmistrust

"LHA at £70pw? That one must be unique."

the average for a two bed out of the numerous examples I used came about £103 per week. I did say "as low as £70", which suggests that £70 was the lowest one I found on the random list I selected.

"The figures you used?"

As per the example that Killmark set up: 1 person + dependant (rent based on LHA of £189) worker earning 22k per year (either putting this figure up or down makes marginally differences, as the differences are reduced thanks to other top up benefits). You can seen what figures he used for rent and council tax from his original post.

"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?"

I haven't ignored it at all. I pointed out, it had nothing to do with the posts in hand. I don't mind sidetracking, but as these responses are getting longer and longer, it's probably best if you pose a new question seperately from the post you were resonding to. And I wasn't aware there was a time limit on responding to it either?

I also don't understand the manner in which you suggest "seriously" which poses the fallacy that it is a position I take? Besides the whole question if fallacious because it doesn't show a like for like example of how someone is "earning" more unemployed as a person in similar circumstances in employment (in fact, the whole point of WTC was to ensure that didn't happen).

If you're going to suggest that a person with 10 kids in a council flat on effectively gets "more" in benefits that a single person who works 40 hours, then of course that will happen. Whereas if the worker also had 10 kids, then it's highly unlikely that the non-worker would be better off than the worker.

And I've already addressed the "forcing them into voluntary work" (an oxymoron, if ever there was one!) several posts up in response to Percy (post 562 was one of the posts in response to this).

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

"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."

I never said I ignored them (as such) I said they would cancel each other out (so I didn't need to factor HB into his benefits, as if I had I would also have to factor paying his rent out of his benefits. I did neither (apart from merely point out that he MAY also have to pay top up rent from his £65 - i.e. if they didn't cancel out each other exactly). Hence I also clarified as such:
"I not only omitted any housing benefits, I omitted housing costs too - in the assumption one would cancel out the other" (In other words the only part of housing costs I didn't omit was those that MAY be not covered by HB). Logically it makes no sense to include one benefit that has to be paid out as an expense in full, when calculating what the £65 JSA has to be spent on.

Read back your reply to Killmark. It is the way you have broken down the quotes. It doesn't matter to me anyway as it is irrelevant to the example you are using.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

Read back your reply to Killmark. It is the way you have broken down the quotes. It doesn't matter to me anyway as it is irrelevant to the example you are using.

I've already clarified any misunderstanding you may have read from the posts.

What does "left myself open" actually mean, and how is it relevant anyway?

"]"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.""

Could you be specific and point out where I said I was ignoring them, and didn't - as it seems to be causing some misunderstanding or confusion.

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

"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."

You're taking this way off track. Now we are talking about what who could say?!
The post in question, that you responded to, was using Killmarks scenario, in which he was suggesting that a worker at the DWP in the SAME personal circumstances as a person on JSA could be better off. - His example didn't factor in that the DWP worker would also receive WTC/CTC and CB amounting to £6k in the same personal circumstances (Hence the reason WTC etc was implemented in the first place - to ensure that it was always going to be better off working). I genuinely have no idea where you are taking this? Both examples in the scenario have to be equivalent of each other. And I am sticking with facts, rather than what someone could "say" they are receiving. (i.e. what they ARE receiving - in this scenario).

Actually I was re-iterating Killmark's other point that you are selecting the lowest possible over 25 year old benefit without considering the extras of housing & council tax. In very simple terms you cannot take the net cash received from a benefit claimant without also taking an employees net earnings less housing less council tax. I didn't need to work through an example (for which I still do not know what figures you have used) to make that point.

For the part highlighted, I showed you a few days ago that it does not pay to work for many who do. Also why do DWP employee people to make better off calculations for those who are looking at taking on jobs, if workers are always better off? PS on the last one, those jobs should definitely be scrapped under coalitions public sector cut!
"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."

I genuinely have no idea how this relates to the post in question? There is a lot of sidetracking going on here.
No sidetracking at all, I answered a statement from you twice. Agree it is not relevant for you to have mentioned it originally.
You must have input a childcare amount, otherwise you would have got nil WTC and a much lower CTC.

You're quite correct. I wasn't aware I did. Having changed it, here is the new award, which ironically increases the total benefits received, as now the DWP worker is also entitled to HB and CTC :-D. Increasing the whole award for the worker on £22k to £6,464 (inc Housing benefit, CTC and CB). Or maybe I missed out the rent the first time - either way, now the example is quite correct.

The figures used? So far the worker is worse off for working when Killmark had 26K to sit on ones backside.

Deepmistrust

"Actually I was re-iterating Killmark's other point that you are selecting the lowest possible over 25 year old benefit without considering the extras of housing & council tax. In very simple terms you cannot take the net cash received from a benefit claimant without also taking an employees net earnings less housing less council tax. I didn't need to work through an example (for which I still do not know what figures you have used) to make that point."

Huh?! I've used rents on both sides for both worker and non-worker in the actual calculations - both are entitled to HB, both have to pay their rents from this. If Killmark INCLUDES HB in the persons incomings, then HE TOO must show it coming out again as rent expenses. Thus if DWP worker has to pay rent out of their 22k+6k incoming, then so he must show that the JSA person must pay rent from his £18k benefit also.

Either way, NONE of this changes the FACT like the point of my original post was to show - was that £65 is what the non-worker has to live on each week - to pay for food, clothes, bills and fares (and possibly any excess rent not covered by HB rules).


For the part highlighted, I showed you a few days ago that it does not pay to work for many who do. In LIKE FOR LIKE scenarios, since the introduction of WTC for low paid workers, it is rare for a person to be better off not working.
Also why do DWP employee people to make better off calculations for those who are looking at taking on jobs, if workers are always better off? PS on the last one, those jobs should definitely be scrapped under coalitions public sector cut! Sorry?

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I've already clarified any misunderstanding you may have read from the posts.

What does "left myself open" actually mean, and how is it relevant anyway?

"]"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.""

Could you be specific and point out where I said I was ignoring them, and didn't - as it seems to be causing some misunderstanding or confusion.

Working through this one (not that it is that important to the exmaple). Your quotes in itallics.

"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."

An identical copy of an earlier posting which you copied.

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.

Read the previous posting again. You did not omit housing costs because you had previously posted "perhaps their rent and mortgage (if they do not qualify for maximum or any assistance)"

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.
Irrelevant to your question (copied post exact as it was)

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.
Now where you go back to your original statement saying why you were considering housing costs were a factor.

I will leave everyone else to judge on that one.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

The figures used? So far the worker is worse off for working when Killmark had 26K to sit on ones backside.

Actually it was 25k (assuming his high rent). And the worker on 22k has an additional 6.4k in top up benefits too. Which even given this scenario puts the worker in a better financial position.

On a side note, suppose you'd worked for 20 years, and lost your job, and had rent etc to pay. Would you be miffed if your JSA and HB entitlement came no where near close to making sure you could keep a roof over your head, and afforded you a basic £65 for food, clothing, fares and utilities, whilst you attempted to find alternative work?

I mean, what do you want? To not pay their rent? what?

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

" NONE of this changes the FACT like the point of my original post was to show - was that £65 is what the non-worker has to live on each week - to pay for food, clothes, bills and fares (and possibly any excess rent not covered by HB rules).

And the worker has what?

I am not even going to waste time on the distractions. Simple questions:

• Workers salary - which figure did you eventually use?
• Housing costs common to both - Is that £103?
• What hours do you have for the worker?
• Childcare - the single worker nearly always has these (add 5 hours for travel to and back plus a hourly rate between £3.50 -£7.50ph