Helping the vulnerable or Benefits Britain?

hugheskevi

Just came across these tables on the web, which although look complicated are very interesting and well worth taking the time to understand. I admit, the information in them surprised me.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/tbm/TBMT_2009.pdf

They show the benefit of working for various families, in detail. Some stats from them (picking a couple at random):

Couple with 2 children under 11 in Private Rented accommodation with gross earnings of £34,000 would get £25,000 if they did not work. They pay an effective tax rate of over 75% for all earnings below £34,000.

A lone parent in Local Authority housing with a child under 11 pays an effective tax rate of 70% or more on all earnings up to £25,000.

By the time you get up to 3 kids the numbers are really scary. Cherry picking stats admittedly:

Couple with 3 children, 2 under 11 and 1 aged 11-15 who are private rental tenants, pay an effective tax rate in excess of 75% on all income under £37,000 per year. They could work and earn £37,000 or take benefits of £29,000.

Where would you draw the line between helping the vulnerable, and making it not worth working?

LilacPixie

those tables are actually scary. I noticed one 1.4d, couple no kids with a gross income of 171 per week have £142 left per week after housing costs due to various benefits yet different couple same house but earning 350 a week only has 161 left because they get little or no benefits. The differences per year is over 9k yet the difference in the pocket only 1k. presuming the income earned by one partner of the couple while the other studies or something

What incentive is there for people to work hard/ gain promotion/overtime??

treliac

A close relative has just been made redundant and though dearly wanting to work, the job centre has told him there's nothing available!

Although loathe to have to say it, I suggested he would probably be better off not worrying about a job (since he would likely only be able to get a low paid one if anything at all), to claim whatever benefits he and his family are entitled to and that he and his wife would probably be better off if they split up too.

It's very sad but there is absolutely no incentive for him to work even though he would prefer to. He is better off letting the state, aka the rest of us, keep him.

Kohoutek

An illustrative case? (sorry it's Daily Wail)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html

The Davey family's £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier. Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.

Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot. With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14. And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.' 'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey. 'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits, but as long as they have everything they need, I don't think I'm selfish.
'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'

She added: 'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.

Income support - £439/week, Housing benefit - £87/week, Carer's allowance - £53/week (son's skin condition), disability living allowance (son's skin condition) £119/week, child benefit - £99/week, council tax benefit - £18/week

It all adds up to £42,000/year, the equivalent of £61,000 if it was taxable income from employment.

treliac

Kohoutek wrote: »

An illustrative case? (sorry it's Daily Wail)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html



Income support - £439/week, Housing benefit - £87/week, Carer's allowance - £53/week (son's skin condition), disability living allowance (son's skin condition) £119/week, child benefit - £99/week, council tax benefit - £18/week

It all adds up to £42,000/year, the equivalent of £61,000 if it was taxable income from employment.

We can only hope for an early menopause.

SingleSue

It must be one very severe skin condition to receive what appears to be high rate care and mobility.

I was better off in a two income working family (in excess of 60k in the last year we were together) compared to a single parent benefit family.

I think what needs to change is peoples views, yes it may not seem worth a persons while working when they are only clearing slightly more than a person on benefits but with working, comes a feeling of self worth, pride and an example to pass onto any children.

I would give anything to be at work, even if on paper it wouldn't be worth my while....financially I couldn't give a hoot, emotionally and mentally is much more important to me, I could finally look at myself in the mirror with pride instead of contempt.

treliac

SingleSue wrote: »

I was better off in a two income working family (in excess of 60k in the last year we were together) compared to a single parent benefit family.

I think what needs to change is peoples views, yes it may not seem worth a persons while working when they are only clearing slightly more than a person on benefits but with working, comes a feeling of self worth, pride and an example to pass onto any children.

60k is a high dual income today, let alone a few years ago.

People's attitudes are not going to change either while they are better off claiming than working or until they are made to contribute some form of service for what they are given... with a big proviso, of course, that they are fit, able and in a position to work.

nickmason

SingleSue wrote: »

It must be one very severe skin condition to receive what appears to be high rate care and mobility.

I was better off in a two income working family (in excess of 60k in the last year we were together) compared to a single parent benefit family.

I think what needs to change is peoples views, yes it may not seem worth a persons while working when they are only clearing slightly more than a person on benefits but with working, comes a feeling of self worth, pride and an example to pass onto any children.

I would give anything to be at work, even if on paper it wouldn't be worth my while....financially I couldn't give a hoot, emotionally and mentally is much more important to me, I could finally look at myself in the mirror with pride instead of contempt.

Absolutely. But as well as pride, there's prospects. I wonder whether the "must have it now" mindset means that people aren't prepared to work for what is effectively nothing now in order to have better prospects later.

paybacktime2008

I have an idea about benefits and it is this.

If you are on benefits and you go on to have another child you get no extra for that or future children.

There are unfortunately too many people making a career choice out of living on benefits.

I am a single mum of one. Work hard la la la.... but would be hugely better off if I stayed at home and popped out a couple more kids.

SingleSue

Agree Trelia, it was a high income but we worked blooming hard for it...and up to it (taking in Nickmason's point).

After taking a couple of years out after having middle son (which was closely followed by youngest son), I was bored silly. Hubby wasn't on particularly good money (but not minimum wage levels) at the time so we had tax credits and of course, I received carers allowance.

I returned to work initially in the evening only to save on childcare (which I couldn't get anyway!) not for money but for my own mental health, I was going absolutely barmy at home and in doing so, I had to give up the carers allowance, our tax credits were obviously reduced by the amount I earnt, help towards housing benefit and council tax benefit were stopped and I had fuel costs, extra clothes etc to fund on top...so we were effectively worse off than before.

Fast forward a couple of years, husband's earnings had improved as he became more senior (and his bonuses were brilliant), I had also worked my way up to a senior position (again!), bringing salary increases and decent bonuses and had also been able to fit in extra shifts during the day and at the weekend when appointments, school and being able to badger my mum into looking after the boys allowed...on quiet appointments weeks, I would drop the boys off at school for 8.45, be at work for 9am, work until 3pm, pick the boys up at 3.15, housework, make dinner and leave the house for 5.55 to be back at work for 6.10, leave at 10.30 and be home and finally able to sit and relax for 10.45.

My day wouldn't end there either, my nights were spent tending to both boys and also a brittle diabetic husband so sleep was not easy to find either!

But you know, I thrived on that...and seeing the pounds rolling into the bank account from work WE had done was very very rewarding.

Hence why I can't look at myself in the mirror anymore, I am not working for my money and I hate that.

paybacktime2008

I also have a prediction and you can call me cynical if you like. With the new rules regarding income support coming in (i.e soon it will be when your youngest child hits 7 you can only claim JSA, used to be 16 now 11 I think) there will be a baby boom amongst certain memebers of our society.