How accurate is entitledto.com?

paddedjohn

Please please tell me this thread is a wind up, £21k in free cash to top up a £14k wage and whatever the dad throws in the kitty. Not the OP'S fault by any means but the system is well and truly broken if those figures are correct.

Gentile

paddedjohn wrote: »

Please please tell me this thread is a wind up, £21k in free cash to top up a £14k wage and whatever the dad throws in the kitty. Not the OP'S fault by any means but the system is well and truly broken if those figures are correct.

Please tell me you are winding us up. Figures are real and have been for years and been abused extensively and reported as become a lifestyle choice in media.

Basically the the problem has been the "entitledto" calculator being there online which Labour thought was a great idea. But this has allowed the workshy to just sit and spend hours jiggling around and trying out various combinations and figuring out which situation allows maximum money. They then either go ahead and "engineer" the situation or ensure that their circumstances change to match it. I know several cases where the BF was kicked out by the GF so that she can become financially independent. Several cases where on "paper" they are single but get together for a nookie every day and weekend.

SkyeKnight

Gentile wrote: »

Please tell me you are winding us up. Figures are real and have been for years and been abused extensively and reported as become a lifestyle choice in media.

Basically the the problem has been the "entitledto" calculator being there online which Labour thought was a great idea. But this has allowed the workshy to just sit and spend hours jiggling around and trying out various combinations and figuring out which situation allows maximum money. They then either go ahead and "engineer" the situation or ensure that their circumstances change to match it. I know several cases where the BF was kicked out by the GF so that she can become financially independent. Several cases where on "paper" they are single but get together for a nookie every day and weekend.

The problem is not the "entitledto" calculator - my child used to go to school on a council estate and believe me, a lot of people there knew exactly what they were "entitledto" with or without online help. It was actually very friendly and anyone who wasn't up to scratch on their benefits got lots of help and advice. The online calculator has merely made it easier for middle class people to get irate over the level of benefits. I actually think it's great that we look after people so well in this country but if the general consensus is that benefit levels are too high then that is what we need to change - not the online calculator!

dktreesea

paddedjohn wrote: »

Please please tell me this thread is a wind up, £21k in free cash to top up a £14k wage and whatever the dad throws in the kitty. Not the OP'S fault by any means but the system is well and truly broken if those figures are correct.

Not really. The welfare system is designed to implement very particular policies and encourage certain behaviours:

Everyone who is able to should have children, not just those who can afford them from their own resources. For those with modest incomes, the State is prepared to reward people who act according to this policy with fairly generous funding per child.

Everyone should work, regardless of whether or not they have children, including those on modest incomes. The State is prepared to pay a significant proportion of childcare costs for people acting according to this policy.

There's a policy to move out of the provision of social housing and incentivise the private sector to provide that housing instead via generous LHA allowances, which act to keep rents high and therefore maintain and prop up the current house prices. While in some parts of the UK that policy is in decline (Scotland) it's certainly alive and well down south.

Everyone should work, even if they are only able to earn the NMW or thereabouts. The government supports Britain being a low wage economy - necessary in order to compete with countries like Germany which have no minimum wage - and even undermines the NMW, by encouraging people into self employment, (even if it means undercutting those paid the NMW in order to get the work) and making workers available to private industry for no wages other than the dole (workfare). The topping up of that income is an acknowledgement it isn't possible to live a decent lifestyle on the NMW.

Oh yes, and it's also clear that parents should not be expected to stay in mutually unsupportive relationships for financial reasons. Hence the falling over backwards to fund one or either of the parents if they do split up.

All of these factors combine together to provide a situation, where, under certain combinations, it may be possible to have a higher benefit payment than wage payment.

The fact that we can't afford this particular set of policies, so print money like it's going out of fashion, resulting in the devaulation of the pound against the USD by 30% in the last 10 years or so, is ignored becasue by devaluing the pound the idea is that more foreign companies who trade in currencies other than the pound would be encouraged to set up shop here and employ local people.

shoe*diva79

Gentile wrote: »

Please tell me you are winding us up. Figures are real and have been for years and been abused extensively and reported as become a lifestyle choice in media.

Basically the the problem has been the "entitledto" calculator being there online which Labour thought was a great idea. But this has allowed the workshy to just sit and spend hours jiggling around and trying out various combinations and figuring out which situation allows maximum money. They then either go ahead and "engineer" the situation or ensure that their circumstances change to match it. I know several cases where the BF was kicked out by the GF so that she can become financially independent. Several cases where on "paper" they are single but get together for a nookie every day and weekend.

I just want to make it clear I'm not pretending to be a single mum. I find myself single since August last year and as my youngest child is only 2 years old I could sit around acting workshy for the next 3 years. But instead I have finished my studies and am now job seeking to provide for my children.

Yes, the state help is generous and without it I would be unable to pay the high nursery costs - its more expensive then my rent!

I would love nothing more then to be reunited with my ex, but as thats as likely as me winning Miss World this year I am going to get on with building my career rather then finding myself reliant on benefits long term.

labyrinth84

It's not fair to slate single mothers for not working...then slate them for working.
I am pleased that single, working mothers are offered extra financial help whilst working. That is a great thing!! So what, single working mothers get extra help whilst ALSO contributing to society.

The amount is high, but I'd prefer my taxes helped working mothers than the members of society who don't want to work at all!!!

Good luck with your interviews!!

princessdon

The benefits ARE high, way to high.

But that isn't here. OP will be working for not much more than the benefits per month and need to find 30% of childcare fees herself, plus keep nurseries/child care workers in employment.

It's not the working benefits to OP that is the problem, it's the way we don't count maintenance and the high none work benefits that push it up.

OP could have applied for 16 hours a week and got virtually the same amount, she has chosen to apply full time at a time when she is entitled to stay on out of work benefits and as such I can't see how anyone can ask for more.

I'd rather pay money to the OP for childcare than some layabout couple who work 24hrs a week between them with teengage children, who never worked until forced.

OP is chosing to come off benefits and surely people can see that is a good thing.

plum2002

princessdon wrote: »

The benefits ARE high, way to high.

But that isn't here. OP will be working for not much more than the benefits per month and need to find 30% of childcare fees herself, plus keep nurseries/child care workers in employment.

It's not the working benefits to OP that is the problem, it's the way we don't count maintenance and the high none work benefits that push it up.

OP could have applied for 16 hours a week and got virtually the same amount, she has chosen to apply full time at a time when she is entitled to stay on out of work benefits and as such I can't see how anyone can ask for more.

I'd rather pay money to the OP for childcare than some layabout couple who work 24hrs a week between them with teengage children, who never worked until forced.

OP is chosing to come off benefits and surely people can see that is a good thing.

I just wish more people saw it this way, instead of "we don't get this! Why should anyone else!" "Why should my taxes pay for this"

I've said it before, I'm glad my taxes go to people like the OP, she's showing her children the value of working, hopefully her kids will be paying my state pension one day (that's if it still exists when I get to retirement age, whatever that will be in the future)

his_wife

this is where the system needs rethinking,

First of all good luck on your job interview

Secondly,, if you earn over, 60,000 you loose cb yet, you can have up to 70,000 made up off top ups in benefit,,, madness or what

Not aiming that point at you by the way, just in general, glad to see your a smart mummy who is willing to bring your children up with morals , good luck once again

Gentile

his_wife wrote: »

this is where the system needs rethinking,

First of all good luck on your job interview

Secondly,, if you earn over, 60,000 you loose cb yet, you can have up to 70,000 made up off top ups in benefit,,, madness or what

Not aiming that point at you by the way, just in general, glad to see your a smart mummy who is willing to bring your children up with morals , good luck once again

Not madness but a cheap and irresponsible vote winning gimmick by the goons who were in charge who designed this knowingly. It worked for to get them 3 terms in power and might work again in the next elections when their main election winning propaganda will be that Tories cut benefits to the needy and vulnerable.