It's STILL tough and not getting better - so how are we coping?

ceridwen

Rummer wrote: »

I think £26000 in benefits is a huge amount of money!

Well - i was carefully not commenting - but...yes...it is...

Personally - I'm employed and would much prefer being on this sort of income than what I actually have - if only because its what I expected to be earning now....:cool::mad: - but I could also find a few uses for that extra money......

flowertotmum

ceridwen wrote: »

Yes - it is the case that there will be a "cap" on household benefit income - it will be set at national average salary = currently £26,000 pa gross. The idea being that no-one should be paid more than a national average salary level to be unemployed.

Thanks for that...£26,000...hubby never earned that much working 50+ hrs a week...and we get just under £10,000 a yr now..well that what i worked out..

flowertotmum

Rummer wrote: »

I think £26000 in benefits is a huge amount of money!

Totally agree with that...some poor folk working don't earn that...

ceridwen

flowertotmum wrote: »

Totally agree with that...some poor folk working don't earn that...

#

The phrase that came to mind there is "Tell me about it...:(:cry:"

maryb

The £26,000 includes housing benefits which is how it gets to such a large sum. This will probably not have such a major impact as you would think because they are already capping housing benefits so by 2013 there probably won't be that many families left receieving more than £26,000.

(But they aren't comparing like with like - to have £26k after tax and National Insurance you'd need to be earning a LOT more. So, yes, it is a huge sum)

The idea is that they won't pay for people to have more than a certain number of children if they can't support them. But that won't stop there being hard cases for existing large families since it applies to all benefits claimants both existing and new, and, inevitably, children will suffer. Not sure what can be done about this. If the changes really do result in people being better off in work than on benefits that would be great IF people can actually get jobs - but that's a big IF. And the largest families sometimes have inadequate parents who are almost unemployable. But we can't go on as we are. I think Iain Duncan Smith does mean well with his welfare reforms (he's not a kneejerk nasty Tory) but it will be hard for people caught up in the backwash

ceridwen

maryb wrote: »

The £26,000 includes housing benefits which is how it gets to such a large sum. This will probably not have such a major impact as you would think because they are already capping housing benefits so by 2013 there probably won't be that many families left receieving more than £26,000.

(But they aren't comparing like with like - to have £26k after tax and National Insurance you'd need to be earning a LOT more. So, yes, it is a huge sum)

The idea is that they won't pay for people to have more than a certain number of children if they can't support them. But that won't stop there being hard cases for existing large families since it applies to all benefits claimants both existing and new, and, inevitably, children will suffer. Not sure what can be done about this. If the changes really do result in people being better off in work than on benefits that would be great IF people can actually get jobs - but that's a big IF. And the largest families sometimes have inadequate parents who are almost unemployable. But we can't go on as we are. I think Iain Duncan Smith does mean well with his welfare reforms (he's not a kneejerk nasty Tory) but it will be hard for people caught up in the backwash

All perfectly accurate.

The thing is that some of these huge families on benefit will end up with less - but you cant make an omelette without cracking eggs - and hopefully it will ensure that this will be the end of people mindlessly churning out loads of children because they know THEY won't be the ones covering the cost....

...and I'm not a kneejerk nasty Tory either......but I'm certainly not in the Labour Party either.......

maryb

littleowl wrote: »

I agree that it appears unfair that two people in a family earning just under £44,000 each should still receive child benefit so this is an area which needs exploring. However, would anyone want to go back to tax being assessed on household rather than individual income? I think there would be many people who would not like that idea..
As a rider I would add that an income of £44,000 seems an absolute fortune to me and I would be very happy indeed to pay a higher rate of tax to receive that.

Actually, thinking about it, I suspect it's a rough and ready childcare cost allowance. Because if you have two earners it's a fair bet that a biggish chunk of the second income will be going on childcare.

Lindy_-_Loo

We only have OH income - around £13,000 so we get CTC, WTC. We use our child benefit for everyday stuff for the family. It would be nice to be able to put it away in the boys trust funds but that just isnt going to happen! Even when I worked we never earned near the cut off for child benefit.

£26.000 benefits per year - that double OH salary!!

Nargleblast

Those living on benefits in the London area will find it hard as some will be getting close to the limit in housing benefit alone, house prices being what they are. And how many people would want to uproot themselves and their children to move away from their families and friends to another part of the country where they don't know anybody and where jobs are like gold dust? Difficult one - yes we should make it impossible for people to do better on benefits than in work, but not everyone fits into the theory.

RAS

The people they are aiming at are those small number with:

1. Very large families who keep having more and more children, meaning that at least one parent is never required to work.

2. People moving into very expensive accomodation (mainly a London type problem)