MSE News: Government shrugs off Lords benefits defeat

16791112

Comments

  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 20,198
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Chutzpah Haggler
    Forumite
    Killmark wrote: »
    Interesting point, but a counter argument with be this, due to the large number of children impacting their CTC/CHB they receive they would be spending a little over 1/4 of their received benefits on their housing cost.

    This leaves them a lot more disposable income when working families are often paying 1/2 their income in housing costs. In my case 65% of my net income goes into just paying the mortgage (which is lower than I would be paying in rent).

    In your example they still have £369 per week left over after paying their rent, if that's not enough they can both go look for a job.

    I wasn't making an argument for or against the cap, I was correcting the PP's rubbish that only those in high rent areas would be affected.

    There's generally a vast level of ignorance as to the level of benefits in the UK - most peoples' initial reaction to a benefits cap of £26k is one of incredulity that anyone on benefits gets that sort of amount!
  • Vejovis
    Vejovis Posts: 16,858 Forumite
    Killmark wrote: »
    I'd say its considerably higher than this as you can tell from a national insurance number whether someone is likely to have been an immigrant.

    how???????
    Birthdays are good for you. Statistics show that the people who have the most live the longest.
    Larry Lorenzoni
  • shedboy94 wrote: »
    [/U][/B]

    I work for Tax Credits, have done for many years so I do think I have the experience to say what I have, despite the "figures". All figures can be manipulated

    Yes, figures can be manipulated but their methodologies can also be scrutinised and their results challenged. They can also legitimately say something about the wider population.

    Anectode and experience is always interesting but its also always subjective. A single individual's experiences cannot be legitimately extrapolated to the wider population.

    So when it comes to trying to ascertain something about the whole country I take numbers over "In my experience" ;)
  • shedboy94
    shedboy94 Posts: 929 Forumite
    Good for you, hopefully you're always in a position to afford your children but many benefit claimants with children started off employed, like you, and unfortunately things changed beyond their control. There are very few people who DELIBERATELY rely on benefits and unless a system is perfect they will ALWAYS exist.

    A small proportion of people are on JSA for years but the number of long time unemployed has increased since the recession hit - there is a serious dearth of jobs in this country. In this climate you can look for many many months and get nothing.

    Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits than UK nationals and are usually not even entitled to benefits "the minute they arrive in the UK".

    I agree the benefits system needs improvement but misinformation doesn't solve anything and improving the system won't do much on its own to improve the economic situation of this country. More jobs - especially better paid, more secure jobs - are needed.

    Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was talking about the large proportion of single parents and families who continue to have children while they are unemployed and rely on the state to fund them......can you imagine going to your employer and saying " I've had another kid, my costs have gone up....can I have a pay rise" That never happens so why get a "pay-rise" in benefits every time another kid comes along?
    I find it very hard to believe that someone can go for 10+ years, looking and applying for jobs every day and not 1 chance arrises.
    You say there are very few people who deliberatly rely on benefits....what experience or evidence do you have to support this?
    Again, what makes you think that immigrants are less likely to claim benefits? The vast majority, in my experience is that they do claim benefits straight away because they ARE allowed, especially if they come from the EU - they declare whatever income they want because it isn't checked, then claim maximum WTC's. Those who don't instantly qualify will still claim, because there will come a point where they will and will have their beneifts backdated to the tune of thousands of pounds.
    The UK benefit system is probably the most generous of any country....that's why there are people happy to stay on benefits and it's what attracts a large influx of foreigners (not all I might add). Would so many foreign workers come if they weren't allowed to claim any benefits for a set period of say 12 or even 24 months?
    There are apparently single women coming from Africa with 8 kids, claiming asylum and living off more money that I will probably ever earn.......what are they contributing to society? That statement is from personal experience.
  • shedboy94
    shedboy94 Posts: 929 Forumite
    Yes, figures can be manipulated but their methodologies can also be scrutinised and their results challenged. They can also legitimately say something about the wider population.

    Anectode and experience is always interesting but its also always subjective. A single individual's experiences cannot be legitimately extrapolated to the wider population.

    So when it comes to trying to ascertain something about the whole country I take numbers over "In my experience" ;)

    Unfortunately I have no way of knowing if the numbers are correct, but I do know what I have personally seen and dealt with, 5 days a week for the past 10 years :(
  • MissMoneypenny
    MissMoneypenny Posts: 5,324 Forumite
    edited 25 January 2012 at 4:06PM
    zagfles wrote: »

    There's generally a vast level of ignorance as to the level of benefits in the UK - most peoples' initial reaction to a benefits cap of £26k is one of incredulity that anyone on benefits gets that sort of amount!

    I was ignorant to the level of benefits people are given, until I started reading these type of boards.:eek: As for the things they claim they have, to get DLA and ESA payments and any other payments they can get for their 'condition':eek::eek::eek:

    One thing I can't get out of my mind is a programme I watched last year where one of the families was a single, job seeking, dad, with a son and daughter. They lived in a council house. The son wore his sister's hand me down girls blouses and trousers that were too short, to school because he said his dad didn't have the money to pay for new boys clothes for him; but he was teased at school for wearing girls blouses. I felt like punching that father on the nose!:mad: He was being given money for his children with tax credits and child benefit and he wasn't spending it on his children!:mad: His children had no idea the welfare state was giving money to their father for them and they never gained from that money.

    We have got to stop giving childrens welfare money, to their parents. Use the schools to feed; clothe; pay for outings and clubs,to make sure the money reaches these children.
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


  • MissMoneypenny
    MissMoneypenny Posts: 5,324 Forumite
    edited 25 January 2012 at 4:03PM
    Killmark wrote: »
    Meanwhile they will be paying 20-40% tax on the profits from renting it.

    More will be paying their taxes soon: the government has given HMRC permission to look at mortgage lenders books. Will the names and addresses match?
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


  • LookingForNipsy
    LookingForNipsy Posts: 89 Forumite
    edited 25 January 2012 at 4:14PM
    shedboy94 wrote: »
    Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was talking about the large proportion of single parents and families who continue to have children while they are unemployed and rely on the state to fund them......can you imagine going to your employer and saying " I've had another kid, my costs have gone up....can I have a pay rise" 1.That never happens so why get a "pay-rise" in benefits every time another kid comes along?
    2.I find it very hard to believe that someone can go for 10+ years, looking and applying for jobs every day and not 1 chance arrises.
    You say there are very few people who deliberatly rely on benefits....3.what experience or evidence do you have to support this?
    Again, 4.what makes you think that immigrants are less likely to claim benefits? The vast majority, in my experience is that they do claim benefits straight away because they ARE allowed, especially if they come from the EU - they declare whatever income they want because it isn't checked, then claim maximum WTC's. Those who don't instantly qualify will still claim, because there will come a point where they will and will have their beneifts backdated to the tune of thousands of pounds.
    The UK benefit system is probably the most generous of any country....that's why there are people happy to stay on benefits and it's what attracts a large influx of foreigners (not all I might add). Would so many foreign workers come if they weren't allowed to claim any benefits for a set period of say 12 or even 24 months?
    5. There are apparently single women coming from Africa with 8 kids, claiming asylum and living off more money that I will probably ever earn.......what are they contributing to society? That statement is from personal experience.

    1. Everyone gets a "pay rise" with each child whether employed or unemployed via child benefit. I agree in the case of unemployed we shouldn't encourage large families and capping benefits should help but children shouldn't suffer poverty because of stupid parents either - they didn't choose to be born any more than you choose to support them.

    2. 10+ years?? I wouldn't believe it either but long term unemployed generally refers to 2+ years and I can believe that, obviously out of the roughly 400,000 who fit in this category some must just be lazy but given it got to this number during the recession some of it has got to be down to a lack of jobs.

    3. Fraud estimates from the DWP for 2010/11 are 0.8% (http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct09_sep10.pdf) - even if they've underestimated by 10 times that amount then thats 8% which still indicates that few people deliberately defraud the system. Obviously its impossible to estimate the amount of people who aren't defrauding the system but aren't looking for work as hard as they could or having more children thoughtlessly so the best we can do is make sure the system provides more incentives for work and planning, that's why I favour reform - but based on EVIDENCE.

    4. Recent government report estimated the number of immigrants receiving benefits and they constituted a smaller proportion of the immigrant population than UK claimants did of the UK population - therefore less likely to claim. 17% of UK vs 7% immigrant (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16643677)

    5. Apparently eh? Well, as someone pointed out earlier most asylum seekers are excluded from the benefit system and aren't allowed to work either for quite a while so I'm even MORE suspicious of this particular anecdote.

    You seem reasonable, I just suggest you supplement your personal experience with wider evidence for a more rounded understanding. You can be sceptical of the numbers but shouldn't outright dismiss them in favour of your personal experience.
  • Killmark
    Killmark Posts: 306
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Vejovis wrote: »
    how???????

    First two letters of their NINO.
  • Killmark
    Killmark Posts: 306
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    More will be paying their taxes soon: the government has given HMRC permission to look at mortgage lenders books. Will the names and addresses match?

    I suspect that those evading tax are a statistical minority because there are numerous reasons why it would have be discovered.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards