Another one of those benefits threads

carolt

I've been holding this in, but there's another whole very cross benefit thread in me that needs to come out - I did some calculations on the wonderfully-named 'entitledto' website just prior to the election and was shocked to discover how utterly pointless my bothering to work was (at least financially - I couldn't live with myself if I was a leech like this woman...).

Sorry to all those who hate these threads - but I don't think the point can be said enough that we as a country simply cannot afford to incentivise people in this way - to deliberately divorce, not work and have innumerable children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276818/I-afford-stay-married-lose-200-week-benefits-says-mother-seven-children-fathers.html

SimbaSimon

She might be in for a bit of a shock with our new PM

carolt

I'd like to think so.

Shame is, it's not fair for her kids to be shocked - they didn't ask to be born.

wymondham

Not that I'm advocating this, but if it's there and available and legal then anyone would be silly not to 'take' ??? Agree with above ... times are a-changing with the dynamic duo now in!

nearlynew

carolt wrote: »

I'd like to think so.

Shame is, it's not fair for her kids to be shocked - they didn't ask to be born.

It's all very well thinking of the kids now. But in a few years time they'll be banging more kids out themselves.

Then you'll be having a go at them and saying think about their kids.


You have to draw a line somwhere.

PhylPho

nearlynew wrote: »

It's all very well thinking of the kids now. But in a few years time they'll be banging more kids out themselves.

Then you'll be having a go at them and saying think about their kids.

You have to draw a line somwhere.

Here's hoping.

One of the best ways of getting the country back on its feet is to no longer encourage so many to lie flat on their backs.

lostinrates

SimbaK2K wrote: »

She might be in for a bit of a shock with our new PM

who knows, we all might be.

Just as I'm working down our food stash (and cosmetics stash, more importantly).

mitchaa

carolt wrote: »

I've been holding this in, but there's another whole very cross benefit thread in me that needs to come out - I did some calculations on the wonderfully-named 'entitledto' website just prior to the election and was shocked to discover how utterly pointless my bothering to work was (at least financially - I couldn't live with myself if I was a leech like this woman...).

Sorry to all those who hate these threads - but I don't think the point can be said enough that we as a country simply cannot afford to incentivise people in this way - to deliberately divorce, not work and have innumerable children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276818/I-afford-stay-married-lose-200-week-benefits-says-mother-seven-children-fathers.html

Carol...This will amuse you then....

The costs amount up when those out of work are claiming LHA for the private rental market as opposed to housing benefit for a council property.

Just a breakdown of what an unemployed ''single'' mother of 2 can expect to rake in living in Aberdeen,

LHA = £159.81pw (£159.81 x 52 = £8,310pa)
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Benef...ouse_allow.asp

CTB = Band B 2 bed flat - 25% ''single'' occupancy discount = £717pa
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Counc...x/ctx_band.asp

CB = £20.30pw x 52 + £13.40 x 52 = £1,752pa
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...fits/DG_073828

CTC = £2300 x 2 (CE) + £545 x 1 (Fam) + £545 x 1 (Baby) = £5,690pa
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/taxcredits.htm

IS = £65.45 x 52 = £3,403pa
http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/ssa/benefit_information/benefit_rates.htm

Assuming both children are under 4 for healthy start vouchers, otherwise I would have to calculate school dinners for over 4 so makes no difference =

HSV = £9.30pw x 52 = £484 pa

So total so far = £20,356

£20,356 is tax free and equates to an income of £1696pm. To earn £1696pm in the workforce you would have to be earning just over £26,700pa

The above figures do not include child maintenance from the 2 missing fathers nor do they include free dental, prescriptions etc

£26000 is the mean average wage for a person in Britain, so all these unemployed mums pushing their kids around shopping centres and the likes are better off than professional workers earning £26k. Considering the professional worker will have get to work costs, car costs, fuel costs etc which the benefit claimant would not, then the unemployed will infact have a fair bit more disposable income than the average worker.

There are many that maximise the above even further by claiming disability and incapacity for bad back and depression. If awarded DLA for themselves or for their children, the amounts can increase significantly.

carolt

For anyone who can take the immediate rage that will ensue, I recommend playing around on the entitledto website, and also the lha one.

Find out just how much you'd be 'entitled to' if you gave up work and banged out a handful of kids, say. Then pick the most expensive area to rent in, that you could never conceivably afford to live in if you actually had to pick up the bill yourself, and find out how much rent the state will pay you if you are too 'poor' to pay for it yourself, as you sadly choose not to work. Add on your council tax benefit, prescriptions charges - oh, and if you want your kids to go university, you'd be a mug to earn too much. As the state will pay for their fees AND give them a maintenance grant, too, if you're sufficiently 'poor'.

I think the definition of 'poverty', as discussed on another thread, very urgently needs to be revised.

It should compare what full-time workers have left at the end of the month AFTER PAYING RENT/MORTGAGE AND COUNCIL TAX. And travel to work/work clothes etc.

All too often, these bills - which for most people eat up the bulk of their take-home pay - are ignored when comparing how well off people are on benefits v in work. People on benefits should not have the money to buy expensive luxuries, at our expense. Their essential bills and food should be covered - and that's it.

If they want a better quality of life, they should therefore work to achieve it. And encourage their children to do likewise.


Edit: to say that michaa has done a beautiful example above. Thanks. Now see what happens when she decides to have a couple more kids and live in central London, say, rather than Aberdeen.

Madness. Bloody madness.

juicygirl

Makes me so angry! I am putting off trying for my first baby because I can't afford it <:(

wymondham

juicygirl wrote: »

Makes me so angry! I am putting off trying for my first baby because I can't afford it <:(

on paper, nobody ever could afford to have children!