Stigmatising of people on benefits

PasturesNew

Generali wrote: »

Are you saying all single people on benefits only get enough for a shared room in a house?

Until they are 35. Then it's the 1-bed rate.

PasturesNew

dekoder wrote: »

There is no argument that the welfare system is designed badly.
My wife being pregnant with our second child I recently started wondering is it worth for both of us to work and pay childcare for two kids. After checking benefits website it turns out if we both work part time we would be better off by £200 a month than working full time and paying for childcare.
Adding the fact you get to spend more time with kids the decision is very easy...

And that's where policy changed behaviour. Roll back to pre-WTC, pre-CTC days and wifey would have been looking for an evening job and/or a weekend job. Also, childcare would've been cheaper if you'd both opted to continue working full-time - a study 'proved' that the Govt propping up childcare and giving some away free, and wanting all parents to work has resulted in childcare costs increasing for everybody.

If society reset it back to how it used to work, which can only occur by removing WTC and CTC ..... I figure everybody would feel better off, wouldn't feel 'forced' to do things they wouldn't choose to do - and wages would increase for those with a job.

Personally, I (kind of) don't care if a single mother doesn't have to work and is just paid benefits - so long as those benefits aren't bountiful and she's not then sitting at home popping out more income streams every year and spending her days supping lager and inviting all the local ferals to party at her flat every night. I figure it's cheaper for the Govt to have a childless person working, than to top up the income of a parent doing the work + covering the costs of their childcare. I've never understood the maths of that!

Yes it's important to encourage people to work - but without enough jobs and without enough money in the benefits pot - it really doesn't make mathematical sense.

I can't do the maths, but I'd be interested to know the comparison in costs to the Govt pot between:
1] Single person working in a job at, say, £15k and £20k, full-time.
2] Two single parents working part-time, getting all the top ups and two lots of childcare needs covered.

michaels

IN some cases it may be better value to have the children in skilled childcare than looked after by a parent who is not up to the job - think of it as a long term investment in the children...

With 3 kids and 2 adults one not working the other working more than 30 hours a week and an income of less than 6k you get 13,677 in tax credits. Almost all other benefits are capital tested so there is thus a strong incentive for those on low incomes not to save for a rainy day as they will just have to spend iot on housing, school meals, council tax etc if they ever need help from the state.

To me a small citizens income for eveyone makes more sense than even having a large tax free allowance then all work is incentivised and there is much less incentive to go trhe black economy route if you just face normal tax/ni rates of 32% than there is if you face benefits withdrawal rates of 95%+ but any parties who have proposed this have become a laughing stock.

ruggedtoast

chiefie wrote: »

I saw a recent post about the government contemplating reducing housing benefit due to austerity cuts, it shocks me how some people tar all people on benefits with the same brush. But they are not all !!!!less, lazy people who want something for nothing and scrounge from the state. So many people find themselves in poverty through illness or disability and struggle to get by. Our society should be there for them first, it could be any of us in their shoes. please think of those who are in real need, we should not be lumping them in with others that are not.

We have a society of working poor. Millions of people are not paid enough to live on so need their incomes topped up by government benefit.

This amounts to an enormous corporate welfare handout to their employers who dont have to worry about paying a living wage, and to landlords, who are the actual fiduciary recipients of housing benefit.

People who are actual welfare scroungers are a very small percentage of the welfare budget, who take up 98% of the tabloid hatred.

Pobby

It is fine to say working a number of years to build up insurances. They are costly. More over, this is a time when many are looking to buy a home, also a good time to start a pension and many want children.

Look at wages. It is fine to talk about median wage but I know loads who are on minimum or just above income.

Then we have the ones who want to start their own business. Been there and done that and at times it was fine. Oh, a recession, what a shame. Fixed overheads don`t change. Landlords don`t share the pain. Business rates go only one way. Years of work can be wiped out.

At 66, not moaning as we are fine and feel very Blessed for it. However, the wonders of endowment mortgages. Decline of annuities.

What a minefield and what demands on your cash.

lisyloo

It is fine to say working a number of years to build up insurances. They are costly.

I agree they are costly and I agree there are issues.
I hope you agree that doesn't mean we should abandon all attempts at contingency, financial planning and looking after our families.
Most people compromise and take out the insurances that they think are of most values to them and also have some savings. Most people don't have every single eventuality covered and have to make compromises.

michaels

The original concept of 'National Insurance' was just that, you were paying to get a minimum level of health, unemployment, pension etc insurance. Nowadays all the benefits are means tested and the welfare state costs way more than the NI payments bring in - basically it is just anoter name for income tax. However it should still provide that minimum level of insurance cover for those who do not earn enough to buy their own top up cover.

lisyloo

I agree.
No-one has said those who can not afford insurance or savings are at fault.