Is £40,000 really a liveable income for families in the UK?

cord123

I completely agree that the benefits system needs to be looked at! It is waaaaay to easy for people to claim and not try to better themselves on it.
My mum was a single parent with 6 children, my dad left, she had been a SAHM for more than 10 years as my dad had a very well paid job. He up and left and my mum had no choice but to go on benefits. This is what they are for. She retrained and did many computer courses etc (despite having to look after 6 children under the age of 13) and on two occassions she had to miss an exam as one of us was ill, meaning she had to repeat a year or a few months.. but she did it and is now a manager at a supermarket. She had no choice other to go on benefits as if she had got a job straight away it wouldnt have even covered half the childcare costs.
I think people on benefits should have to either train or volunteer and work for their money. Fine, if they have kids, playgroup is free from age 3 so use those mornings they are in there to do something constructive!

People she see benefits as a short term stop gap to something better, not a way to live.

My husband and I earn a combined wage of around £45k a year and still struggle.... we live in a modest 3 bed which is £900 a month (cheap for the area we live) we are not entitled to any help at all and he pays maintenance (rightly so) to his ex for his two girls. She on the other hand has more money than she knows what to do with, she has jsut cut her hours to part time and is better off!!!! Crazy!! She smokes and is out every weekend for meals or drinking, we cant afford that! She is in a housing assaociation house to pays next to nothing for that.

She used to earn over £30k in london, then moved locally taking a big pay cut and then cut her hours down, all the time knowing that she would be 'topped up' by the tax payer. This isnt a dig at the ex (simply the only person i know to base an example on!)

If I could, I would get a second job, but due to my husband working shifts it would be impossible!

wotsthat

LydiaJ wrote: »

wotsthat

I'd be interested to know what you think the system should do with people who can only work if they pay for childcare that costs more than they earn.

Well maybe I'm not ready to deliver a full policy document just yet;)

I have been in pretty much the same situation myself. My wife went back to FT work when my son was only 3 months old. After childcare and expenses we were probably £100/ month up. We took the view that a) we needed that £100 (skint at the time) and b) that non-working people don't get christmas bonuses and pay rises.

At that time CTC wasn't available but a little later we were able to get nursery vouchers claimed directly by the nursery. It seemed much less complicated than the current system although at the time we were very grateful.

It would be flippant to say that people should just suck it up and get on with it because I think government should be trying to find ways to encourage people to work whilst at the same time discouraging worklessness.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Giving up any work, purposely, with the intent to claim benefits, is morally wrong.

I really don't get why this is difficult to understand, or how comparisons with child benefit can be drawn.

You could extend this theory to say that anyone who is capable of work, who is self supporting, should work to increase the tax take to reduce the burden of tax on the rest.


The system is flawed but then all systems are in some way.

Whilst I accept that the number "claiming" a benefit that perhaps they morally shouldn't collect is higher than those avoiding tax, The numbers are probably close than you think.

treliac

wotsthat wrote: »

We took the view that non-working people don't get christmas bonuses and pay rises.

What are these? (shrug shoulders)

wotsthat

treliac wrote: »

What are these? (shrug shoulders)

You must be younger than me.

In the late 90's we used to get bonuses and pay rises. Ahh - those were the days.

treliac

wotsthat wrote: »

There's a huge benefit to working in terms of mental and physical wellbeing. We shouldn't be trying to put people off because they are financially better off by not working.

The horse has somewhat bolted on this one now. Housing and other living costs have risen so dramatically that it takes two working adults to fund most families. The relationship between average earnings and cost of living are completely out of sync. If benefits are cut back too far, the result would be thousands of children on the streets - impossible for the govt to contemplate.

The adjustment that would be required to rebalance these dynamics looks pretty near on impossible in my opinion. Good luck to the government who can get anywhere near. Huge pain lies between where we are now and where we should be.

michaels

Thank you for answering - I can more see where you are coming from now.

However I am still not sure I can see the difference between one pot of taxation called 'tax credits' and another called 'income tax', both are part of the tax system and thus anyone choosing to work part time when they could work full time is choosing to pay less tax than they 'should'?

less than full time is choosing to pay less

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think it's unreasonable to expect someone already in full time employment, to then go and get another part time job just so that they don't receive tax credits or benefits.

Aberdeenangarse

The whole 'benefits' thing is still a mess and no Government has sorted it out yet. I have a friend who's worth somewhere excess of £4m who was made redundant. Not only did he get a massive redundancy package, but he also claimed Jobseekers allowance in the few weeks he wasn't working, and also claimed for all his travelling expenses for the Interviews he attended!

wotsthat

treliac wrote: »

The relationship between average earnings and cost of living are completely out of sync. If benefits are cut back too far, the result would be thousands of children on the streets - impossible for the govt to contemplate.

I'm definitely not for stopping benefits but they could be reformed.

I remember the fuss about Lizzie? who was on wife swap. She and her husband didn't work, had 6 kids and her husband managed to be in the pub every lunchtime.

It would have made not a jot of difference to the kids if benefits had been cut - they'd still be p**s poor and still be in possession of !!!!!! parents. Maybe if benefits could be reformed and costs reduced there'd be more to spend on poor children but delivered directly. Like nurseries claiming funding directly, free breakfast clubs, free school meals and so on.

Jimmy_31

MrRee wrote: »

Ignoring the usual suspects who are so jealous of me that they attack at each opportunity ......

I'm pretty sure 'most' families have both adults earning.

I'm also convinced that £40k a year is around the minimum for those living in the home counties and London, remember to add benefits to get to this figure.

My personal opinion is that no-one, at all, should be asked to live on a household income of less than £30k in the North and £40k in the South.

By the way, this is a BBC article, I had nothing to do with it.

I wish i was an amazing man like you, the jealousy is eating me up inside:rotfl:

Anyway captain fantastic, hows the mrs ?