to think that 20 grand on benefits a year is loads

(793 Posts)
MrsBucketxx Fri 19-Jul-13 08:36:18

considering they dont pay any income tax.

just watching we pay your benefits program and worked out that this is over 30 grand if it was a normal tax paying salary.

why was this not mentioned.

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 14:48:36

I am not talking about the odd person living in mayfair with 15 dcs. I am talking about unemployment as high in central London as the poorest areas in the country.

it shows the system is not working for vast numbers of people. not the odd person on HB in mayfair.

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 14:36:19

I am not talking about the odd person living in mayfair with 15 dcs. I am talking about unemployment as high in central London as the poorest areas in the country.

it shows the system is not working for vast numbers of people. not the odd person on HB in mayfair.

Darkesteyes Tue 23-Jul-13 14:32:01

I share your frustration Dahlen.

peteypiranha Tue 23-Jul-13 14:30:46

What about carers? I dont think a lot of people can do that really well but they only get the minimum wage.

Dahlen Tue 23-Jul-13 14:18:21

We are talking in circles now. There seems to be little understanding of how benefits are applied and how ordinary people are affected. Most benefit claimants are ordinary people, working full-time jobs, living in normal non-London areas, who simply cannot afford to live on their earned income. They are not single mothers with 15 children living in Mayfair.

London is quite different to the rest of the country. The rest of the country is affected not only by the cap but also the allowance. The allowance is set at a percentage of market value rents in the area, meaning that HB applicants are automatically put into the bottom end of the market. No problem with that apart from the fact that there simply aren't enough houses in that bracket to go round, because not only are there too many HB applicants but they are also competing against non-HB applicants who want to keep their housing costs.

There seems little point in discussing this anymore though.

Darkesteyes Tue 23-Jul-13 14:10:08

And i think i did say on a thread on here a long while ago that the Tories do see tax credits as another benefit.
But they are actually a business subsidy for poorly paying employers.

Darkesteyes Tue 23-Jul-13 14:06:46

A lot of joe publics beliefs come from not reading between the lines. Ive never claimed tax credits but IMO they are needed because employers dont pay enough. (i was earning £6 an hour 12 years ago FFS.)
The minute this Gov got in 3 yrs ago i knew it wouldnt be long before the working poor got set againsst the non working poor Just more divisive policies.

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 13:12:48

I used to live near one of the areas of highest unemployment in the country - in very central London.

while others had to commute for 3-4 hours per day because they could not afford to live there.

why?

Viviennemary Tue 23-Jul-13 12:57:25

People do want housing benefit capped. Lots of people have to live outside London because they can't afford to buy or rent in London. So why are certain people subsidised by huge amounts to live where another person can't afford to live. So I totally agree with HB benefit caps.

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 12:42:39

people want HB capped

yes because people who cannot claim HB have a limit to what they can afford. and for most people 3 bedrooms is as much as they can afford. or perhaps much less.

Dahlen Tue 23-Jul-13 11:47:43

But people want HB capped - yet the majority of people affected by this are the working poor.

People want tax credits stopped - the majority of claimants are the working poor.

The argument is that people have a sense of entitlement and if they just adopted more of a "make do and mend" mentality no one working should need tax credits, because they're only using them to fund their foreign holidays bla bla bla.

The majority of benefits are claimed by people in work and pensioners.

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 10:47:29

I dont think anyone is complaining about people who work FT and provide care for their children getting support.

Dahlen Tue 23-Jul-13 10:31:21

FasterStronger - yes, but I don't think it's expecting too much to be able to afford to keep a roof over your head and food in your stomach if you work full-time, regardless of how many people can do that job. If you are prepared to work hard, it should be rewarded, i.e. you should not find yourself where you are working to full capacity only to find yourself still needing to receive benefits and then receiving the opprobrium of the general public for doing so. Wages are always going to be commensurate with experience and talent, and that's as it should be, but the basic should be enough to live off if it's full time in a fair society IMO.

Also, the number of people who come from deprived backgrounds without any kind of support and still do well for themselves are an overwhelming minority. In the majority of cases those who have managed it have had some extra support - either parents with particular parenting skills, a community worker who has gone the extra mile, an outreach grant that has made something financially out of reach possible. That's why these sorts of things are so important if we want to break the cycle of deprivation. We have to provide opportunities.

IMO it all starts with the family. I really think that if we ploughed all our resources into creating a generation of great parents, a lot of our social problems would take care of themselves.

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 09:45:24

I agree but it does mean it will be low paid.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 23-Jul-13 09:09:51

Just because something is unskilled does not mean that nobody has to do it.

Is flaming obvious really retail,food production everything like that its all usually NMW or a few pence above it.

alemci Tue 23-Jul-13 09:09:05

no I agree dahlen but I do think it does create disrespect in certain scenarios, whatever they do the money still comes, no disciplinary at work etc, no sanctions or wagedocking. not everyone is the same I know that.

thanks for sharing your success. good on yousmile

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 08:35:13

that's very much a MN belief. I dont think joe public thinks that.

of course what's important is based on what you need/see as a need around you.

need a heart transplant. its the heart surgeon. etc. etc. need to fire service, its them. need rubbish collecting etc etc.

but either way, importance does not determine the price someone is paid to perform the role. that is a function of the number of people who can perform the role and how much someone is willing to pay for the task to be performed.

low paid jobs can be performed by many unskilled people.

peteypiranha Tue 23-Jul-13 08:04:57

On the other hand fasterstronger some of the most important jobs are the lowest paid ones.

FasterStronger Tue 23-Jul-13 07:57:30

dahlen I don't think this is because I'm fabulous, I think it was because I was lucky enough to have better and more choices than others. good for you. but don't generalise that everyone else has had support to get where they are. and you don't know the stuff of their lives.

sock And someone's got to do the low paid jobs yes. but that is not a terrible thing. not everyone works to a good enough standard to be worth much in terms of salary.

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 22-Jul-13 23:11:52

And someone's got to do the low paid jobs if nobody did everybody would be fucked and not in a good way.

Dahlen Mon 22-Jul-13 22:14:59

I am a single parent. I made a bad choice in partner although if we;re going to use that as a case for deserving or undeserving poor then that's going to be 50% of the population deemed undeserving.

As a result of that, I've suffered quite badly at times. I've managed to rise above it and these days I'm sitting pretty. I don't think this is because I'm fabulous, I think it was because I was lucky enough to have better and more choices than others.

1. excellent parents who valued education and encouraged me
2. an excellent education (sheer luck due to catchment area), the second-nearest school was failing and if I'd attended there who knows what would have been the outcome.
3. a fabulous boss who understood the demands of being a single parent and allowed me flexible working.
4. great friends who took up the slack when professional childcare fell through
5. being fortunate enough to be born with the intelligence to do well at education and in work, because hard work does not automatically equal financial stability.

What I want to see is more money spent on education and family intervention and support. I'm not on about chucking more money at welfare families - though there aren't that many TBH, most are working and had their children at a time where they thought they could afford it. Only 1 in 9 HB claims is made by the unemployed. I just don't see how making deprived children even poorer helps anyone.

handcream Mon 22-Jul-13 21:54:49

We all have choices. We cannot keep blaming others for our choices or our circumstances.

FWIW - I came from a single parent family from early teens and went to a really rubbish school. No one stayed on for A levels, we all left and got typing jobs.

Well, I didn't want that. I went to a 6th form college and whilst I didn't get great grades and go to uni I want those opps for my sons.

I could have got married much much ealier than I did but I wanted more. Some che to go another way but that doesn't mean that others have to pay for those choices.

Throwing money when you have more children with no visble means of support is not the way to go.

Dahlen Mon 22-Jul-13 21:52:44

There's even more of a problem in America where there is less of a welfare culture. They also have bigger social problems.

It's lazy thinking to think "loss of respect for authority is caused by the welfare state making it too easy for people to get money without working"

alemci Mon 22-Jul-13 21:48:33

I do think that there is a two fingers at you attitude to authority in modern Britain and it is always someone elses fault. I think people used to be more respectful.

Dahlen Mon 22-Jul-13 21:44:08

Pay for what choices?

The choice to work in a dead-end job? That's not a real choice. That's determined overwhelmingly by life chances, and do you know what influences those life chances more than any other single factor? Income.

That might not fit your rhetoric, but if you want to argue with the hundreds of research projects that have gone into this - all of which say the same thing - you just carry on.

I don't disagree that adults have to be held accountable for their decisions BTW. What I disagree with is that their children have to be. Unless you change things for the children, they'll simply make the same mistakes as their parents. How does that benefit anyone apart from maybe feeding the sanctimonious hand-wringing brigade?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now