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

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

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."

I think I've made it clear that I was refering to any ADDITIONAL rent to pay, and not the rent that is covered by any HB. AGAIN, it's not being ignored: I've already stated this refers to EXCESS. All that is OMITTED (not ignored) is the cancelling out of rent to pay and the HB that covers it.

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.

As above, - OMITTING two payments (one in, one out) that cancel each other out.

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)"

I'm perplexed as to what is confusing you?
I've made it clear on several occasions, that in the context of my original post, there was no need to put in a benefit that was being immediately paid out in rent - IF IT DIDN'T affect the outgoings required on the £65 in JSA.

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.
AGAIN you are missing the point, that the only part factored into the £65 is any EXCESS. Not putting in HB figures that CANCEL OUT outgoing RENT was supposed to be less confusing. I could easily have said "oh and he gets £189 in HB and has to pay out £189 in rent" it still WOULD NOT affect the other £65 and what he has to spend it on. (Except in the case of excess rent, which I've already addressed numerous times)

I will leave everyone else to judge on that one.

Personally I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I dont' think you've actually understood my post in context.

Suffice to say, it MATTERS NOT ONE JOT to the original point, which was to show that the high life cannot be lived on £65 when you have to pay food, clothing, utilities, and fares (and POSSIBLY any excess rent which is not covered by HB according to LHA rules).

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

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? For the umpteenth time, the post clearly shows I used £22k.
• Housing costs common to both - Is that £103? For the umpteenth time, Killmark used £189 per week, so therefore did I.
• What hours do you have for the worker? Over 30.
• 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. The scenario is outside London so stick nearer the £3.50 rate, but if you use childcare you'll have to go back and adjust it all again, as the worker will be eligible for childcare costs. I've also asked where would the non-worker get childcare help from for attending interviews (assuming 3/4 per week, at maybe 4 hours per time)? I assume there is some help for childcare for interviews and training?
• 
  

Another factor is child maintenance. HB and JSA is means tested, so child maintence would be reduced if JSA partners pays any, whereas WTC isn't, so this won't be reduced for the worker if their partner also pays any.

Do you see how ridiculous all this is yet? Are we going through every scenario known to mankind to find an example that shows a non-worker is marginally better off than a low paid worker?
There is no need if you are trying to prove a point, I've never denied the exception to the rule.

And if you do find such an example, what does it mean? Does it mean that we should scrap JSA? £65 being too much per week? Or perhaps slash their HB? What does it actually mean?

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

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.

It puts the worker receiving how much per hour net after taking off the benefits they could otherwise receive (assuming they had no childcare and did indeed rent)? If a worker does 38 hours to get 28.4K gross, is it not acceptable for an unemployed person to work for the equivalent 25K received via workfare?

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 would be grateful to get that much! I do see your point here which is why I (like many others) think those who have paid taxes should get more than those you have not.

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

As I said in a much earlier post either benefits are too high or wages are too low - adjustments have to be made to ensure less of the newly unemployed find they are better off staying where they are.

Another factor is child maintenance. HB and JSA is means tested, so child maintence would be reduced if JSA partners pays any, whereas WTC isn't, so this won't be reduced for the worker if their partner also pays any.

JSA pay £5pw. CSA2 is 15% of net earnings plus tax credits. You are going way off the example on this one with all the possible permatations.


Do you see how ridiculous all this is yet? Are we going through every scenario known to mankind to find an example that shows a non-worker is marginally better off than a low paid worker?

I've already shown you how a worker can be worse off.

There is no need if you are trying to prove a point, I've never denied the exception to the rule.

There are too many exceptions and too many who do not qualify for benefits due to partners in part-time posts with massive mortgages.

And if you do find such an example, what does it mean? Does it mean that we should scrap JSA? £65 being too much per week? Or perhaps slash their HB? What does it actually mean?

As I have said before numerous times, workfare is being fair to both.

Killmark

Deepmistrust wrote: »

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.

I used my own circumstances for last year, then was comparing it to my inner london dwp salary of £19,040, your right about the CTC + CB and deducting average childcare costs for this area would give an additional net income of £0.

Heres the figures though for comparison.

Working full time + top up benefits = £23800 (-NI/Tax + Tax free benefit element)

JSA or IS + Associated benefits = £26,000 (counting tax free element)

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

As I have said before numerous times, workfare is being fair to both.

I'm not, nor have been, discussing the merits of workfare.
The posts you are responding to, are as per Killmarks scenario.

Deepmistrust

Killmark wrote: »

I used my own circumstances for last year, then was comparing it to my inner london dwp salary of £19,040, your right about the CTC + CB and deducting average childcare costs for this area would give an additional net income of £0.

Heres the figures though for comparison.

Working full time + top up benefits = £23800 (-NI/Tax + Tax free benefit element)

JSA or IS + Associated benefits = £26,000 (counting tax free element)

Hi, thanks,

According to entitled to, a single adult with 1 dependant earning 19040 pa with weekly rent (as according to LHA) of £189 is entitled to the following (assuming no childcare at this stage, as you haven't stated childcare costs)


Entitlementper yearper weeknotesMeans-tested income entitlementsTax Credits-Initial Tax Credit£2,535.15£48.62 Tax Credits£2,535.15£48.62Child tax credit. Means-tested bill reductionsHousing Benefit£4,601.97£88.26We have calculated your entitlement using the Local Housing Allowance rate you entered. LHA rates change every month so please return to the calculator regularly to check your entitlement. Our calculation is based on you receiving £48.62 from child tax credit. Other income entitlementsChild Benefit£1,058.50£20.30 Total Entitlements£8,195.62£157.18 weekly

That is TOTAL entitlement of £8195.62 (untaxed) in addition to £19,040 (taxable) salary PA.

The same scenario (i.e. one unemployed adult on means tested benefits and 1 dependant) comes out at a total income of just over £18k or £25k (equivalent to taxable income)

You can add other scenarios:
Child maintenance - will be assessed against means tested benefits but not against WTC or CTC.
Childcare - For the DWP worker: Assuming childcare of £100 pw then £73.73 of this is paid by WTC
Childcare - for the unemployed worker for attending interviews and training = £0 (can't find any childcare help costs for childcare for jobseekers to seek jobs?)
Other benefits such as free prescriptions will apply to the non-worker
Employement benfits such as private health care/gym/Pension scheme may apply to the worker.

All in all, I still find the worker (in this case) in a significantly better financial position. This is without factoring other stuff like bonuses, overtime, promotions, long term career prospects etc etc.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Personally I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I dont' think you've actually understood my post in context.
.

This just gets funnier.

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I'm not, nor have been, discussing the merits of workfare.
The posts you are responding to, are as per Killmarks scenario.

Yes, of course you refused to answer the question. I will draw my own conclusions as to why.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Hi, thanks,

According to entitled to, a single adult with 1 dependant earning 19040 pa with weekly rent (as according to LHA) of £189 is entitled to the following (assuming no childcare at this stage, as you haven't stated childcare costs)


Entitlementper yearper weeknotesMeans-tested income entitlementsTax Credits-Initial Tax Credit£2,535.15£48.62 Tax Credits£2,535.15£48.62Child tax credit. Means-tested bill reductionsHousing Benefit£4,601.97£88.26We have calculated your entitlement using the Local Housing Allowance rate you entered. LHA rates change every month so please return to the calculator regularly to check your entitlement. Our calculation is based on you receiving £48.62 from child tax credit. Other income entitlementsChild Benefit£1,058.50£20.30 Total Entitlements£8,195.62£157.18 weekly

That is TOTAL entitlement of £8195.62 (untaxed) in addition to £19,040 (taxable) salary PA.

The same scenario (i.e. one unemployed adult on means tested benefits and 1 dependant) comes out at a total income of just over £18k or £25k (equivalent to taxable income)

You can add other scenarios:
Child maintenance - will be assessed against means tested benefits but not against WTC or CTC.
Childcare - For the DWP worker: Assuming childcare of £100 pw then £73.73 of this is paid by WTC
Childcare - for the unemployed worker for attending interviews and training = £0 (can't find any childcare help costs for childcare for jobseekers to seek jobs?)
Other benefits such as free prescriptions will apply to the non-worker
Employement benfits such as private health care/gym/Pension scheme may apply to the worker.

All in all, I still find the worker (in this case) in a significantly better financial position. This is without factoring other stuff like bonuses, overtime, promotions, long term career prospects etc etc.

In all of your statements, you seem to ignore the fact that the worker has to go to work around 35 hours pw for what they get.

The non worker gets about the same, for sitting at home and doing nothing.

Gets back to the points you conveniently failed to address on my post earlier.

Do not misinterpret or take out of context what I am saying, I am only talking about those who choose not to work.

It is clear that you are a bit detached from society that you have never come across this sort of thing in your walk of life, but it does happen. Clearly an awful lot more than you choose to believe.

LizzieS_2

That is TOTAL entitlement of £8195.62 (untaxed) in addition to £19,040 (taxable) salary PA.

The same scenario (i.e. one unemployed adult on means tested benefits and 1 dependant) comes out at a total income of just over £18k or £25k (equivalent to taxable income)

Assuming worker does indeed rent, net pay is £237.27pw after housing and council tax payments.

Assuming worker has a mortgage, net pay is £149.01pw after housing and council tax payments.

For both the above there could be a further deduction for childcare, say £30pw. The worker has to work 5 days a week as opposed to unemployed signing on once a fortnight, say worker incurs £20pw travel costs more than unemployed.

Net reward for doing zilch is £140.42pw.

No matter how you look at it, worker is not gaining much (if anything) from working and that is based on a salary well above what thousands earn.

You can add other scenarios:
Child maintenance - will be assessed against means tested benefits but not against WTC or CTC.

The worker would pay £37pw for one child, unemployed £5. Both would keep any incoming maintenance no matter how much it is.

Childcare - For the DWP worker: Assuming childcare of £100 pw then £73.73 of this is paid by WTC
Childcare - for the unemployed worker for attending interviews and training = £0 (can't find any childcare help costs for childcare for jobseekers to seek jobs?)

The example in my opinion says the unemployed person has little incentive to work so I would certainly slash those benefits, not pay more.

Other benefits such as free prescriptions will apply to the non-worker

Another income assuming both did have the same costs.

Employement benfits such as private health care/gym/Pension scheme may apply to the worker.

I doubt many will get those for free. Doesn't BUPA allow unemployed to join?

All in all, I still find the worker (in this case) in a significantly better financial position. This is without factoring other stuff like bonuses, overtime, promotions, long term career prospects etc etc.

Rose tinted glasses there!