No point working - why not just go on benefits?

Loughton_Monkey

I think William Beveridge himself would be turning in his grave to see what happens these days.

The living standards and income that, today, are termed 'Poverty' by the media and by pressure groups is basically an insult to what he was trying to introduce.

diable

ukcarper wrote: »

The LHA they would get would depend on the age and sex of their children and where they are. Where I live LHA for 2-bed house is £173 per week and a 3-bed is £213.

To qualify for 3 bed the children would have to be a boy and girl and the oldest would need to be 10.

It does discriminate against people who buy their own homes as they don't have the luxury of getting a larger home once their children reach a certain age.

stuart30

ukcarper wrote: »

The figure above is based on a couple with 2 kids paying £35 council tax and £200 rent a week

They would get Pay £236 tax credits £123 council tax benefit £15.50 and LHA £137.50 a total of £512.


Have a look here http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

Odd very odd...

Im married with 2 kids..before being salaried i was hourly paid,if i worked a basic 240 hour month i would take home £1100/£1200.

That's when my mortgage was £700..council tax £100 so £800 before paying bills.

No benefits as we didn't qualify so had too make do on the £300 (wife's child benefit of £130 a month wet on kids clothes/nappies ect) left over too pay for gas/electricity/food/petrol/ not including luxuries like Sky and Internet.

These benefit calculators are all very well until you need too use them in the real world,that's the reason i ended up working either 15 hour night shifts or 24 hour shifts...either way id be working 7 days a week.

Appreciate what your saying but its simply not the case in the real world.

I still have mates working 240 hrs and im receiving more a month than them...there take home is £1100 ish a month then they have rent/council tax too find and mines £930 AFTER mortgage/council tax.

I can understand where people get the ""cant be arsed too work"" attitude.

Oh i believe the maximum housing cost the council will pay in my area is about £550 per month....maybe upto £650 in Cambridge it self.

ukcarper

diable wrote: »

It does discriminate against people who buy their own homes as they don't have the luxury of getting a larger home once their children reach a certain age.

I'm not sure how it works with a mortgage but I just did a quick check with a mortgage and still got working tax credit and a bit towards council tax but that’s all so I’m not sure if you would get any help toward your mortgage probably not.

ukcarper

stuart30 wrote: »

Odd very odd...

Im married with 2 kids..before being salaried i was hourly paid,if i worked a basic 240 hour month i would take home £1100/£1200.

That's when my mortgage was £700..council tax £100 so £800 before paying bills.

No benefits as we didn't qualify so had too make do on the £300 (wife's child benefit of £130 a month wet on kids clothes/nappies ect) left over too pay for gas/electricity/food/petrol/ not including luxuries like Sky and Internet.

These benefit calculators are all very well until you need too use them in the real world,that's the reason i ended up working either 15 hour night shifts or 24 hour shifts...either way id be working 7 days a week.

Appreciate what your saying but its simply not the case in the real world.

I still have mates working 240 hrs and im receiving more a month than them...there take home is £1100 ish a month then they have rent/council tax too find and mines £930 AFTER mortgage/council tax.

I can understand where people get the ""cant be arsed too work"" attitude.

Oh i believe the maximum housing cost the council will pay in my area is about £550 per month....maybe upto £650 in Cambridge it self.

I think labour introduced working tax credit and child tax credit in part to make it worth going back to work. But the killer is LHA which has been around for a long time all be it under different names. I believe it is going to be reduced and later a maximum amount of benefit of £500 a week is being introduced. Mind you, you need to earn £35k a year which is £678 a week to take home £500 a week makes you think doesn’t it.

ILW

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I think William Beveridge himself would be turning in his grave to see what happens these days.

The living standards and income that, today, are termed 'Poverty' by the media and by pressure groups is basically an insult to what he was trying to introduce.

I believe the increase in benefit payments has been a major factor in the massive increase in single parent homes over the last few decades. I cannot see that as a good result.

The_White_Horse

i was watching a tv show the other day, and this family that lived in a council flat could only afford one 42" flat screen and two games consoles.

it was sickening to watch this abject poverty in England in 2011.

next month the mother might only be able to afford to smoke 15 fags a day instead of 20. DISGUSTING.

these people are almost destitute. i say lets give them more. they deserve more. afterall, they do nothing but breed like bacteria and drink and smoke and watch trash tv. we need more of these people. we need to nurture these people and we all need to be told by guardian reading luvvies that every solitary one of these cretins is oxbridge material -they are not not at oxbridge because they are lazy thick good for nothing spongers - no, they are not there because of society. it's your fault they are not at oxbridge and working as bankers. it is your fault you filthy oppressors.

If we just gave these people 2k a month extra, they would spend it on books, on learning and on bettering themselves. they wouldn't spend it on booze, fags and holidays in magaluf.

look at the lotto lout. here is a prime example of a waste of space that had the good fortune of getting money to take him away from the poverty line and improve his life. The money certainly helped him.

I think as a nation, we just have to conclude that there are literally millions of wasters and scum that deserve NOTHING. the sooner the handouts to these career spongers ends the sooner this nation can start rebuilding.

why is every waitress in London, Polish or from some other Eastern European country - when we have loads of council estates full of benefit grabbing scum?

why does the sponging class feel it is above waitressing or toilet cleaning? the whole problem, as I said earlier in this thread is that all these people think they deserve respect innit. and toilet cleaning is demeaning and they do not get respect from doing it. kids on these council estates need to learn that they must work or starve and they will be the toilet cleaners of the future. if one happens to be clever, then they have the opportunity to get out and improve themselves.

the rest just aren't clever. they are thick good for nothing lazy spongers.

ILW

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why is every waitress in London, Polish or from some other Eastern European country - when we have loads of council estates full of benefit grabbing scum?

.

He does have a point there.

SingleSue

ILW wrote: »

I believe the increase in benefit payments has been a major factor in the massive increase in single parent homes over the last few decades. I cannot see that as a good result.

Wasn't a factor in mine becoming a single parent home....nope, that was completely down to thinking another woman's arms were better than mine!

But I do get your point......

ILW

SingleSue wrote: »

Wasn't a factor in mine becoming a single parent home....nope, that was completely down to thinking another woman's arms were better than mine!

But I do get your point......

Trouble is that the term singlr parent is a bit vague.

Terms such as divorced, widowed, etc. never seem to be used lately.