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

POPPYOSCAR

liam8282 wrote: »

This just gets funnier.

Can't quite decide between funny or quite sad!!

Killmark

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)

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.

Net Salary: £14,528.68
Benefits: £8195.62 untaxed = £9834.74
Total: £24363 (net pay + tax free benefits)
Total: £22724 (net pay + benefits)

Assuming childcare costs £100 and £73 is paid for through CTC then this is a net cost of £1666

Total: £22697 (net pay + tax free benefits - childcare costs)
Total: £21058 (net pay + benefits - childcare costs)

Also the rules concerning Child maintenance have changed for certain benefits, so assuming your unemployed and recieving 15% of the nrp's income your even better off than a worker.

Compared to identical circumstances of someone unemployed as stated before getting over £18000 untaxed benefits is the same net income as a salary pre-tax of Gross Pay £25,000.

LizzieS_2

Killmark wrote: »

Net Salary: £14,528.68
Benefits: £8195.62 untaxed = £9834.74
Total: £24363 (net pay + tax free benefits)
Total: £22724 (net pay + benefits)

Assuming childcare costs £100 and £73 is paid for through CTC then this is a net cost of £1666

Total: £22697 (net pay + tax free benefits - childcare costs)
Total: £21058 (net pay + benefits - childcare costs)

Also the rules concerning Child maintenance have changed for certain benefits, so assuming your unemployed and recieving 15% of the nrp's income your even better off than a worker.

Compared to identical circumstances of someone unemployed as stated before getting over £18000 untaxed benefits is the same net income as a salary pre-tax of Gross Pay £25,000.00£25000.

You have worked for an extra £52pw (just over £1ph so far). You haven't deducted travel costs to work (unemployed do not have this expense), prescriptions, school meals, dental appointments & eye appointments (latter 4 all free to unemployed).

Killmark

LizzieS wrote: »

You have worked for an extra £52pw (just over £1ph so far). You haven't deducted travel costs to work (unemployed do not have this expense), prescriptions, school meals, dental appointments & eye appointments (latter 4 all free to unemployed).

My calculations on the thread were to demonstrate that point.

In real terms though I won't be £52 better off due to the tax free nature of these benefits, I will infact be £135 worse off.

Again doesn't take into account childcare so total would rise to £161 worse off (even with CTC and CB).

And as you say prescriptions, travel to work, replacement work clothes etc etc.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

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

Draw whatever you wish.
The fact remains you are responding in detail to a post posing a scenario, whilst deviating onto a seperate question.

I've already responded to at least one relevant part of Workfare, and even given you the post number in which it relates.

I can lead a horse to water, I can't make it drink.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

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.

Again, the scenario is relating to a job seeker. Job seekers tend to seek jobs. I'm not refering to the minority who actively avoid work. JSA already has measures which restrict payments for those that do not seek work as per JSA rules.

Again, an attempt to deviate from the scenario that was being discussed. Why do you keep coming back to the minority of workshy, when the question relates to the unemployed? Do you seriously think that every person currently unemployed and job seeking are all long-term layabouts?

I've an idea, why don't you go down to the job centre and put that do the people there who are genuinely and desperately seeking work they can do.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Again, the scenario is relating to a job seeker. Job seekers tend to seek jobs. I'm not refering to the minority who actively avoid work.

So because you are not referring to it, nobody else can refer to it?

It may be a minority at present, but I personally believe it is a minority that is a real problem and growing.

JSA already has measures which restrict payments for those that do not seek work as per JSA rules.

Does that stop people having an opinion about it?

You yourself, as well as I, have said you agree with benefits in principal.

Does that make the current system right?

Personally I think more could be done. Which is why I agree with the points about the workfare scheme.

Again, an attempt to deviate from the scenario that was being discussed. Why do you keep coming back to the minority of workshy, when the question relates to the unemployed? Do you seriously think that every person currently unemployed and job seeking are all long-term layabouts?

I am not deviating, I am relating the scenario to my original points.

I've an idea, why don't you go down to the job centre and put that do the people there who are genuinely and desperately seeking work they can do.

Why don't you go to one of the many council estates in Britain and put it to the people who are not genuinely not seeking work and are doing nothing at all to support themselves or their families. Except claiming benefits.

(Not that I have a problem with council estates, or the people that live there)

I have no problem with those that are at the job centre, actively seeking employment.

Which is again why I agree with workfare, if they are struggling to find work they can do, it would be an opportunity to get out and maybe learn new skills, whilst still seeking employment.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

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.


I've already proved in this demonstration that the worker is several thousand pounds better off working in immediate financial terms alone.
You're continued attempts to deflect from this are pointless - you can use the calculator yourself, using like-for-like scenario. I've given you all details already. You are also ignoring that job seekers also...seek jobs, and have indeed some associated costs such as travel and clothing too? It may or may not be as high as the other scenario, but it's no good ignoring any costs at all as you are doing repeatadly.

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.
Housing benefit isn't means tested also using childmaintenance? Genuine question?


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. No, not an income at all. A benefit. It's also possible there are no 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? They'd have to pay. Lots of workers get free or subsidised health care plans. Not to mention insurance, gym memberships, pensions etc.

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!
No, pure facts, like I said, you can deny it at your peril, or check the calculator yourself.

The fact remains, that this is only looking at a limited amounts of scenarios, and when the FACTS of the case are actually input into the benefits checker calculator there is no denying that for this case, it is better off no matter now marginally (about £3k in this case, to be in work, than seeking work). And this is just short term benefits.

Nothing on here changes the original FACT of the matter than the unemployed person still has to budget food, clothing, utilities, (possibly any excess rents or mortgages) out of £65.00. Regardless of whether the worker is better off or not, (in this case the worker is better off), doesn't detract from the fact that there is not much room for luxuries, or living the high life on £65.00 per week.

Nor does it negate the fact that attempts to suggest that Job seekers don't seek jobs but do "nothing" (as one less-enlightened person on here put it), and that by definition all job-seekers must therefore be layabouts.

You also attempted earlier to suggest that (ex-tax-paying) unemployed should get 'more'. Seeing as you are (in this virtual scenario) already attempting to slash the current rate, I'm assuming that in your world they wouldn't even receive £65 per week, so back to the original question, how would you expect a job seeker to meet essential living costs, whilst job seeking on much less than £65 per week? And define "slash"?

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

The fact remains, that this is only looking at a limited amounts of scenarios, and when the FACTS of the case are actually input into the benefits checker calculator there is no denying that for this case, it is better off no matter now marginally (about £3k in this case, to be in work, than seeking work). And this is just short term benefits.

So for 35 - 40 hours per week, the value to the worker is £3k per year.

Can you not see why people choose not to bother working?

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Why don't you go to one of the many council estates in Britain and put it to the people who are not genuinely not seeking work and are doing nothing at all to support themselves or their families. Except claiming benefits.

(Not that I have a problem with council estates, or the people that live there)

No of course you don't which is why you introduced yet more bigotry against poor working-classes who live in council homes.

Another analogy to your attempt to detract from the fact that you obviously DO have a problem with council estates or the people that live there, is along the lines of the person who would also idiotically say "I'm not racist, but I don't like black people".


To be honest, you're not even enlightened enough to have a conversation with, the mass of contradictions you come out with just tie you in knots.



I have no problem with those that are at the job centre, actively seeking employment.

Which is again why I agree with workfare, if they are struggling to find work they can do, it would be an opportunity to get out and maybe learn new skills, whilst still seeking employment.

If they want to engage in any VOLUNTARY work whilst unemployed, (as many already do) then great. If they would rather spend their days job seeking, (as many do) then great. If they would rather spend their days actively avoiding work and playing the system (a job in itself) - again a minority of unemployed and I don't know why you don't tire attempting to produce your entire argument against a minority group that isn't even relevant (there will always be a minority of people determined to play the system whatever system you have in place), then the system will eventually catch up with them, one way or another.

Your continued attacks on what you all would do to the unemployed - like slash benefits etc, would attack ALL the unemployed (which also included the previously tax-paying unemployees that Lizzy even thinks should have "more" money than the rest) not just the workshy.