Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

AIBU to think benefits are needed to push earners up from avg. wage to increase equivalent of 10k p.a. in salary?

(152 Posts)
williaminajetfighter Wed 25-Sep-13 13:30:22

So I'm watching very bad tv 'Rip Off Britain' and they cover someone who is having debt problems. They show him reviewing a spreadsheet about his debt and and it shows his income:

Wages - 1,600
Tax credits - 280
Housing benefit - 200
CSA - 190
Child benefit - 80
TOTAL - 2350

Assuming he works FT then his income is circa 24,600 which is pretty typical of the average wage in the country. Removing the income from CSA, his new income is 2,160 which works out to what your take home income would be FT at a salary of 34,000. So essentially benefits have given him a 10k salary increase!

I don't know a great deal about the benefits system and obviously have no idea of his personal circumstances - can glean that he has a child and is getting ex-spousal support.

But what I'm struggling to understand is that his salary is pretty much the average across the country so I wonder -- are most parents on an average wage in need of such a significant top up? I'm sort of blown away by the fact that an average wage does not provide enough to live on and that benefits can increase someone's 'salary' so significantly.

janey68 Sat 28-Sep-13 08:51:39

Ps- just to clarify: no problem at all with people choosing to work part time or in easier jobs than they have the capabilities for if they can afford it. Personally I worked part time when my kids were under 4, and I may well again in a few years time. But it's ludicrous that people can make these decisions based on govt top ups

passedgo Tue 01-Oct-13 10:24:05

Mumzy I object to your notion that large families living in London shouldn't be able to live on benefits.

I grew up in a large family in London. London would be a sad childless desert if it wasn't for people having temporary respite while they bring up a future generation. Remember that we need a next generation, they are an investment, not a burden.

When the centre of London got turned into offices in the eighties it was desolate. Now there are more people living here which is great, and these people shoud be able to stay and have children. Excluding poor families is social engineering of the lowest order.

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