We all pay your benefits

Soubrette

princeofpounds wrote: »

Some of them are available on low incomes yes. But I would link it in to the previous post I just made - any work you do up to a certain point results in the benefits you receive being taken away at a high marginal rate. So if you earn £100, you lose £90 of benefits until you aren't due any benefits any more.

(It's not 90% marginal tax rate at all points on the wage scale, but it is at some points and it is generally very high.)

So you get a lot more free time and only a little less money by not working.

Thanks.

So what happens when all your kids leave home? Do you just go back on the mininal job seekers?

Just wanted to make a comment about the youngish lad whose jobseekers allowance was basically pocket money - he's just sponging off his parents isn't he? His jobseekers allowance should be going towards his roof and keep but his family, for whatever reason, choose to subisidise him. I don't really see how the state can do anything about that.

JencParker

Soubrette wrote: »

Thanks.

So what happens when all your kids leave home? Do you just go back on the mininal job seekers?

Just wanted to make a comment about the youngish lad whose jobseekers allowance was basically pocket money - he's just sponging off his parents isn't he? His jobseekers allowance should be going towards his roof and keep but his family, for whatever reason, choose to subisidise him. I don't really see how the state can do anything about that.

I agree, but what family doesn't subsidise their children at times of difficulty - even adult ones.

(Within their means, of course)

princeofpounds

So what happens when all your kids leave home? Do you just go back on the mininal job seekers?

I don't know about all the benefits. But until the bedroom 'tax', or rather the removal of the spare room subsidy, certainly you would keep your housing entitlement indefinitely.

Just wanted to make a comment about the youngish lad whose jobseekers allowance was basically pocket money - he's just sponging off his parents isn't he? His jobseekers allowance should be going towards his roof and keep but his family, for whatever reason, choose to subisidise him. I don't really see how the state can do anything about that.

True. It's not really his type that are the 'problem' from the point of view of public finances. The big money goes on pensions and housing. I think in the program they touched on this, but only briefly.

Obviously the cost to the taxpayer might only be one criterion for the system.

jojo1964

Soubrette wrote: »

Thanks.

So what happens when all your kids leave home? Do you just go back on the mininal job seekers?.

I assume they will be posting on the equivalent of MSE, complaining about the inequality of life in Britain.

SGE1

quantic wrote: »

I'm saying the person who has worked and earned their benefits, deserves a better standard of life while out of work than someone who has never worked.

Surely we should be paying benefits according to need, not according to someone's assessment of how much they "deserve" it? Why do we find the need (and seem to get so much pleasure out of) moralising, when surely this should be about the state's basic duty to give everyone a humane standard of living?

Soubrette

JencParker wrote: »

I agree, but what family doesn't subsidise their children at times of difficulty - even adult ones.

(Within their means, of course)

I must be one of the meanest mums out there then If any of my kids were at home looking for a job, I'd be taking a good proportion of the job seekers allowance to cover their costs (I might put it into a bank account to give it back to them at some point when they move out - but I might not, depending on how my own finances were )

Thanks for the info PofP - very useful. I've always wondered why so many people on the MSE consider that there are lots of people on benefits as a lifestyle choice but they always talk about friends of friends or neighbours. Whenever anyone talks about their own lifestyle on benefits, they never really seem to have enough to get by - always seemed to be very contradictory to me and I wondered why

Here's another question. The way our economy is run, unemployment is seen as (depending on which politician is asked) an unfortunate side effect or a useful way of keeping inflation down. No party has any intention of making full employment any kind of policy.

Obviously if there were full employment, the story would be different, but again it puzzles me that we talk about the unemployed as if there is full employment and anyone could walk into a job tomorrow but there isn't and they can't!

So shouldn't we accept that some people don't want to work (or even if they did they'd be well down the list of potential employees for any employer), there aren't enough jobs out there for anyone, people who don't work don't have the best lifestyles anyway. So rather than spend a lot of money on retraining, A4e etc - just pay them a subsistence job seekers and leave them to it?

jojo1964

As I mentioned earlier, there was a post, later deleted, where somebody who had just had their sixth child posted an SOA, it showed that she claimed almost 2000 a month in benefits, and after paying bills, debt payments, 3 mobile phones, 200 a month for presents, had a surplus of 700 a month, now can anyone explain how fair that is to the many who genuinely need state help, such as pensioners etc.

Please explain because its beyond me

Soubrette

jojo1964 wrote: »

Please explain because its beyond me

Moving away from pointing the finger at specific people - what do you think would be fair for any working person with 6 children?

burnleymik

Soubrette wrote: »

Moving away from pointing the finger at specific people - what do you think would be fair for any working person with 6 children?

I think it would be fair for them to put themselves into a position where they could afford 6 children before they had them.

Soubrette

burnleymik wrote: »

I think it would be fair for them to put themselves into a position where they could afford 6 children before they had them.

That's a whole other can of worms though - what if they had 6 affordable children and then one of them lost their job?

Or is it fair, similar to Quantics idea re job seekers allowance, that people who have the same amount of children get different amounts of benefits depending on their situation? So you get more if you are deemed able to afford your children?