New Benefit Rates 2013-2014

princessdon

rogerblack wrote: »

It is not.
There are provisions both in ESA and JSA for this.
They are not set out as they are determined from the other rates - the difference between the couples rate and the single rate.

However, I note the daily telegraph piece failed to provide any actual numbers, despite claiming it's widespread.

I note also that claimants in this position as a family will get significantly _LESS_ than if the women were single parents, living alone, as is common in the non-asian/muslim community.

Sorry in that document I only saw it there - I cannot believe that the UK benefit system allow this.

And the link to the paper wasn't there either.

It's not the money it's the principle.

rogerblack

princessdon wrote: »

Sorry in that document I only saw it there - I cannot believe that the UK benefit system allow this.

And the link to the paper wasn't there either.

It's not the money it's the principle.

Why should polygamous marriages not be recognised in the benefit system?

Homosexual partnerships are now of an equal status as heterosexual couples, despite being subject to the death penalty in other countries.

princessdon

Because it's illeagal in the UK

Where do we draw the line, accept child brides and pay them benefits?

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

Because it's illeagal in the UK

Where do we draw the line, accept child brides and pay them benefits?

Yeah... I mean, it's not as if we give contraceptive advice to under 16s, is it?

Perhaps policy makers have decided to live in the real world?

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Yeah... I mean, it's not as if we give contraceptive advice to under 16s, is it?

Perhaps policy makers have decided to live in the real world?

I don't think its the real world to pay for bigamy which is illeagal, I am not a prude, but can't fathom why we pay benefits for something that is classed an unlawful in the UK. It really shocked me to see that in there. How many wives do they allow, is there a maximum.

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

I don't think its the real world to pay for bigamy which is illeagal, I am not a prude, but can't fathom why we pay benefits for something that is classed an unlawful in the UK. It really shocked me to see that in there. How many wives do they allow, is there a maximum.

We give benefits to couples, regardless of their marriage status. This is merely an extension of that. A man with 2 or more partners living with him isn't doing anything unlawful, assuming consent of course. There may be some moral issues, but it isn't unlawful and, frankly, this arrangement penalises them financially, so I don't see the issue.

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

We give benefits to couples, regardless of their marriage status. This is merely an extension of that. A man with 2 or more partners living with him isn't doing anything unlawful, assuming consent of course. There may be some moral issues, but it isn't unlawful and, frankly, this arrangement penalises them financially, so I don't see the issue.

I guess so, it just seems strange we have a system in place to support something against our laws.

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

I guess so, it just seems strange we have a system in place to support something against our laws.

Sex with a girl under 16 is against our laws, but we recognise any children that result from it.

A man (or a woman) living with multiple partners isn't against our laws. Just an observation, not an offer!

zagfles

Tax credits rates here (plus tax/NI rates & thresholds)
http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/as2012_tax_and_tax_credit_rates_and_thresholds_051212.pdf

Sixer

princessdon wrote: »

I don't think its the real world to pay for bigamy which is illeagal, I am not a prude, but can't fathom why we pay benefits for something that is classed an unlawful in the UK. It really shocked me to see that in there. How many wives do they allow, is there a maximum.

Presumably, it's to avoid paying the full single person amount for the second (and subsequent) wives. I wouldn't get hot under the collar about it - it's cheaper than the alternative; not dearer.