Yellow jacket freedom fighters spreading to London

ukcarper

Arklight wrote: »

I think there is a damaging and usually untrue stigmatisation of people who don't have much money, like they are all Wayne and Waynetta Slob blowing £50 notes on fags and and booze, and blocking doorways with babies prams.

You really don't get much money from the government to look after a child anymore. Much of the headline figure that people get annoyed about is made up of housing benefit, which by definition enriches private landlords, not the low income tenants who receive it.

Benefits are now restricted for people with more than 2 children:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/03/two-child-limit-on-benefits-are-you-going-to-be-affected

I would urge people to reflect on whether it's really very fair or sensible to point at some of lowest income, most trapped people in the UK, and accuse them of taking too much.

You don't think £138 a week for two kids is very much ?

MobileSaver

Herzlos wrote: »

That 2/3rds of families with poor children have adults in work is pretty horrifying

A lot depends on your definition of "poor." If poor means "household income is below 60% of the median household income" then it's hardly surprising that a significant number of households will be earning a lot less than your typical both parents working full-time scenario.

Similarly IF that is the definition used then it is practically impossible to ever have zero "poor" people which makes the statistics pretty meaningless.

itwasntme001

Anyone on benefits should not be given any money. They should be given food vouchers and very basic living expenses for housing and utilities only.


If they do not contribute to the economy, they should be lucky to get the above. If they wanted to get more money then they should simply find work.


This shouldn't be a debate. What i have suggested is common sense and fair.

Herzlos

I sort of agree with that - they should be getting free utilities (water, gas, electric, phone, internet) from a pre-determined supplier, free furniture, and most of their disposable income in terms of a debit card account, with a small amount of cash (for things like paying for school trips, bus fares and so on).


They should also be given some access to leisure, either with free memberships to clubs or a small allowance - just because they are unemployed doesn't mean they don't need to look after their mental health.

ukcarper wrote: »

You don't think £138 a week for two kids is very much ?

Child benefit? It's £138 a month and doesn't go anywhere near as far as you'd think once you factor in food, clothes, uniforms, furniture, buggies, transport, car seats, rent for extra bedrooms, and so on.


It's also given to any families where neither parent earns over £50k (dropping to nothing at £60k), including a lot of families that really don't need it (both parents no £49,999.99/year get the full allowance).


It helps, but it certainly doesn't cover the costs of 2 kids.

zagfles

Herzlos wrote: »

I sort of agree with that - they should be getting free utilities (water, gas, electric, phone, internet) from a pre-determined supplier, free furniture, and most of their disposable income in terms of a debit card account, with a small amount of cash (for things like paying for school trips, bus fares and so on).


They should also be given some access to leisure, either with free memberships to clubs or a small allowance - just because they are unemployed doesn't mean they don't need to look after their mental health.

Yes, the main problem with UC is that people who can't manage money are given a month's worth including for rent etc, rather than being paid direct.

Child benefit? It's £138 a month and doesn't go anywhere near as far as you'd think once you factor in food, clothes, uniforms, furniture, buggies, transport, car seats, rent for extra bedrooms, and so on.


It helps, but it certainly doesn't cover the costs of 2 kids.

Someone with earned income under about £16k would get around £3k per child per year on top of child ben from UC or tax credits. On top of which housing benefit/LHA/UC housing element would be higher because of the requirement for a bigger house.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

I sort of agree with that - they should be getting free utilities (water, gas, electric, phone, internet) from a pre-determined supplier, free furniture, and most of their disposable income in terms of a debit card account, with a small amount of cash (for things like paying for school trips, bus fares and so on).


They should also be given some access to leisure, either with free memberships to clubs or a small allowance - just because they are unemployed doesn't mean they don't need to look after their mental health.






Child benefit? It's £138 a month and doesn't go anywhere near as far as you'd think once you factor in food, clothes, uniforms, furniture, buggies, transport, car seats, rent for extra bedrooms, and so on.


It's also given to any families where neither parent earns over £50k (dropping to nothing at £60k), including a lot of families that really don't need it (both parents no £49,999.99/year get the full allowance).


It helps, but it certainly doesn't cover the costs of 2 kids.

Child tax credit is £60 a week

zagfles

MobileSaver wrote: »

A lot depends on your definition of "poor." If poor means "household income is below 60% of the median household income" then it's hardly surprising that a significant number of households will be earning a lot less than your typical both parents working full-time scenario.

Similarly IF that is the definition used then it is practically impossible to ever have zero "poor" people which makes the statistics pretty meaningless.

It's "equivilised" household income, so basically adjusted for family size, which makes a massive difference.See this tool from the IFS https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
A family with 2 adults and 4 kids with take home income of £40000 a year and council tax of £1500 would be in the bottom 27% of the equivalised income distribution scale!

No wonder "child poverty" is so high!

Arklight

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Anyone on benefits should not be given any money. They should be given food vouchers and very basic living expenses for housing and utilities only.


If they do not contribute to the economy, they should be lucky to get the above. If they wanted to get more money then they should simply find work.


This shouldn't be a debate. What i have suggested is common sense and fair.

Except it costs a relative small fortune to administer that, stigmatises people who are already struggling, and doesn't appear to do anything to lift people out of poverty in the places it's been tried, like America.

Arklight

zagfles wrote: »

It's "equivilised" household income, so basically adjusted for family size, which makes a massive difference.See this tool from the IFS https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
A family with 2 adults and 4 kids with take home income of £40000 a year and council tax of £1500 would be in the bottom 27% of the equivalised income distribution scale!

No wonder "child poverty" is so high!

Yeah, all the poor are really on £40,000 and signing on Wednesdays, and if not, well that's their fault for being lazy and stupid . No problem here. Pour yourself a nice drink, give yourself a big pat on the back for seeing through it all and keep stepping over the rough sleepers on the high street. They aren't really homeless, it's some sort of hipster glamping experience.

badgerhead

Isn't consumption a key factor in the economy. Rich people buy assets, poor people spend money. Poor people with no money spend nothing. There's more to contributing to a society and an economy then simply paying tax.