To ask someone to explain how Philpott could claim 60k?

(99 Posts)
alphablock Thu 04-Apr-13 19:00:39

I should start by saying that I usually ignore the headlines in the Daily Fail about people who are able to claim mind-boggling amounts of benefits as I believe such cases are few and far between. However, I can't help but question the numbers being widely quoted in the press today.

I have seen figures of between £1,000 and £2,000 a month quoted as being the loss in child benefit Philpott anticipated if his ex got custody of their 5 kids. This suggests child benefit is between £40 and £80 per child per week, which it obviously isn't.

I thought unemployed people could claim £53 per week, so even if he was able to also get child benefit for 11 kids, this doesn't add up to 60k. Both the women were working as cleaners, so not sure what other benefits they would get (and be forced to hand over to him).

I know he was getting housing benefit, but they were living in a 3 bed house in Derby, so surely the rent couldn't have been that much.

I know he is a dreadful individual and he clearly had made a decision to live off the state and the women he manipulated, but is there actually any truth behind the figure of 60k or has this been plucked out of thin air?

freerangeeggs Thu 04-Apr-13 19:04:40

Guardian said they were raising 11 children on £8000 a year.

kim147 Thu 04-Apr-13 19:08:22

From what I understand - the value of housing benefit, free school meals, child benefit were the equivalent of 60k tax free.

But that's not money in hand.

So they had £8000 a year to raise 11 children. I suppose you have to ask what that money had to go on as rent, school meals and council tax etc were already sorted.

Piffle Thu 04-Apr-13 19:10:06

Ch4 just said
£8000 child benefit
Each woman worked and earned £18k ish in WFTC
Plus housing benefits calculated a total of £54k

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 19:12:00

Considering one paper set the child benefit at £600 a week I think the figures are being plucked from thin air...

kim147 Thu 04-Apr-13 19:13:40

How much do you need to earn before you don't qualify for housing benefits? I don't know about this area but I thought housing benefits went down as your income went up - and the threshold was low to not qualify.

hotcrosbum Thu 04-Apr-13 19:20:39

As always with these things, the figures are vastly inflated to get people all riled up about benefit scum.

(And I say that as a claimant of partial housing benefit, CTC and WTC as dh on low wage, people think we must be loaded too).

He was also taking all of her wages, which probably made up a big chunk of the £1000 a month he 'lost' when she left

EchoBitch Thu 04-Apr-13 19:26:41

Times said they were on the equivalent of £100,000 pa.

He had the only bank account so he got the lot.

But 17 children and 3 adults must be expensive to maintain.

hotcrosbum Thu 04-Apr-13 19:27:16

Kim - it depends where you live.

We are in London so rents are high. Dh earns 22k, but the rent on a two bed flat here is £1400 per month, so we get help. If he earned that amount and we lived in a much cheaper area of the country, I doubt we would qualify for HB at at all.

Footface Thu 04-Apr-13 19:31:46

I also read £10000.00 as well, personally think its a load of bollocks and papers are just making it up.

They will have added on things like healthy start vouchers and free school meals which would be a fair amount for 11 children as well.

alphablock Thu 04-Apr-13 19:41:21

Thanks everyone. Glad it's not just me that thinks the papers are making stuff up.

chandellina Thu 04-Apr-13 19:53:53

Channel 4, which actually attempts to do fact checking, came up with a possible 55k, mainly from child tax credits. I don't know much about these but on the website it says you don't need to be working and can get up to £2,690 per child and £545 per child is the basic amount. Someone should just kindly leak what they were actually getting so the debate could be slightly more reasonable.

kim147 Thu 04-Apr-13 19:59:45

I suppose the more useful figure is the actual physical cash they had per month and what that had to be spent on.

It seems a lot of things were already taken care of - such as school meals, housing, council tax etc.

What did they have to spend their cash on and how much was it?

lljkk Thu 04-Apr-13 20:00:07

I have just been working thru this; there is no way those women were each receiving £20k in WFTC. The system wasn't that generous.

the other thing is, in spite of so many kids, they didn't have the material trappings of a family group on such a high income.

Guessing numbers here.

From the Telegraph article: "the court was told he lost £1,000 a month when his lover Miss Willis left him."

Or £12k/annum. IF Mairead brought in a similar income with her tax credits, and IF all other numbers in that Torygraph article were correct, that suggests household income of
£12k Mairead
£12k Lisa
£8k child benefit
£8k housing benefit (assume this didn't depend on Lisa+kids being there)
?school dinners equivalent (£100 week, £4k/yr)

Not a lot more than £44k, anyway. For 15 people or so.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 20:05:19

You also don't get free school meals on working tax credits, do you?
Thought healthy start was only for income support too?
You don't get free prescriptions either.

lljkk Thu 04-Apr-13 20:06:28

2007 TV documentary had them down as claiming £508/week (or about £25k/annum).

Publishing outlandish guesses about their actual benefits is vile in itself. Does not inform.

DogsDinner Thu 04-Apr-13 20:11:39

£60 000 tax free sounds about right.

They would get about £65 a week per child made up of child tax credits and child benefit, possibly £200 in wages assuming both women worked 16 hours a week, plus about £100 working tax credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit probably at least £120.

So with 11 children living in the house that would be well over £1000 a week cash, plus other benefits like free school meals.

HappyMummyOfOne Thu 04-Apr-13 20:13:07

I doubt it was £60k but £40k sounds more reasonable. CB, CTC and WTC for 11 children would amount to a fair deal a week.

Housing benefit, prescriptions, school dinners etc are all counted and should be as people on a salary dont say i earn x after excluding all these items.

I read something about how they came to that number last year it listed school meals, prescriptions, glasses, healthy start vouchers, something about cold weather payments (I thought they were for pensioners) and school uniform payments (also haven't heard of that) and a whole host of other things. I'm on the mn app just now so can't trawl the net for it but its online somewhere.

DogsDinner Thu 04-Apr-13 20:14:01

No free school meals if claiming working tax credit of course.

PeneloPeePitstop Thu 04-Apr-13 20:15:19

Some of those benefits can only be accessed via income support, which is practically impossible to get if someone in the ousehold is in work.

The only explanation for that would be benefit fraud, which given what we know about Mr Philpott isn't beyond the realms of possibility...

SirSugar Thu 04-Apr-13 20:15:45

Mr.Philpott costs a fucking fortune

benefits
incarceration
court case
further incaceration
ongoing care for surviving children

so you are all way off the mark - the real cost of this example of sub-culture in the UK is hidden

Catchingmockingbirds Thu 04-Apr-13 20:16:25

I didn't really understand the amount that he apparently claimed in benefits either, if both women worked then surely he'd be a SAHD so wouldn't be entitled to that much in benefits?

lljkk Thu 04-Apr-13 20:25:23

Trying but failing to find link for that story listing all the benefits.

But ffs, people need prescriptions & glasses if they need them. It's not like you can swap spectacles for Sky & widescreen tellies in every room is it? (Is it?)

If the Telegraph is right about Mick losing £1k income when Lisa went, that £1k would probably include the school uniform (that's paltry anyway) & healthy start vouchers, too, so in the numbers I was coming up with.

The cold weather payments depend on actually having cold weather and are per property (I think). only had 2 qualifying weeks in this last (very cold) winter in DE24 (Philpott's postcode area, I think). So woohoo, another £50 a year. That really boosts the numbers (not).

stuffthenonsense Thu 04-Apr-13 20:28:06

I interpret the figures they quote as 'if they were not claiming benefits they would have to earn the equivalent of £60k before tax to have the their current level of income' not' they received £60k in benefits'
To be honest though, this whole story of how much is detracting from what should be focused on...they actually killed their children and for THAT reason alone should be despised.

FanjoForTheMammaries Thu 04-Apr-13 20:33:30

Why are people so obsessed with picking apart the minutiae of his lifestyle. He makes my skin crawl..the less I think about him the better, yet there are loads of threads poring over him and his income. Just don't get it.

ShellyBoobs Thu 04-Apr-13 21:59:52

...yet there are loads of threads poring over him and his income. Just don't get it.

Pressumably because the financial implications of the children's mother leaving him was the motive for his horrendous crime?

FanjoForTheMammaries Thu 04-Apr-13 22:06:58

I dont get the poring over his motives either.

Was honestly not judging people for doing so, I just don't get it.

Was just musing.

HollyBerryBush Thu 04-Apr-13 22:11:17

100k is the equivalency he would have had to earn to get the net sum of 63k (I think it was 63, might have been 65)

So in all, with all the CB, housing, income support, FSM, tax credits and so forth, factoring in the money the women earned cleaning, he had 60k+ coming in

Lisa leaving with the children meant an approx. 2k drop in his income per month, which is round about a 38% drop in his household income per month

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Thu 04-Apr-13 22:26:04

People are " bothered" about his income because many of us are really,really fed up of working hard to subsidise feckless,feral scum like this. And don't say that these people are a tiny minority of benefits claimants. A minority, certainly. I could throw a stone from my front door and hit the front doors of at least four families screwing the system. This is the reality.

chandellina Thu 04-Apr-13 22:27:14

I can understand why it's part of the story but I think the outrage should focus on what he did, not what he took. It's not like they were living the high life anyway, and you'd have to be a bit mad to keep having children to get more in benefits.

Tortington Thu 04-Apr-13 22:30:34

what is really sad, is that THIS is the question you ask. This.

of all the questions you could ask about domestic abuse, the previous stabbing of a girlfriend and the murder of 6 children.

this
is
the
question
asked

The daily mail nation has won

I am disgusted

Willdoitinaminute Thu 04-Apr-13 22:36:46

Heard a bloke being interviewed on radio who had built his conservatory. His benefits must have been good if he was able to afford a conservatory.

carabos Thu 04-Apr-13 22:36:57

thingsthatmakeyougohmm sorry, but people like this are a tiny minority. Read Jon Snow's blog on C4 site. He has the facts - there are only 30 families in the country with 11 or more children claiming benefits as the Philpotts did. 30. The vast majority (almost 1m) have one or two children.

Put that in your effing pipe and smoke it.

Willdoitinaminute Thu 04-Apr-13 22:42:01

Jeremy Vine Show around 1pm today for reference and the bloke was commenting on the crime. He said he knew him because he had done his conservatory.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Thu 04-Apr-13 22:51:32

"you'd have to be a bit mad to keep having children to get more in benefits."

As opposed to getting up every morning and working?

Much nicer to stay at home.confused

Willdoitinaminute Thu 04-Apr-13 22:54:48

But isn't the original question regarding his benefits the underlying motivation for the crime he committed. Pure greed.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Thu 04-Apr-13 22:54:51

Oh, one commentator says more than 11,tiny minority. One says more than 13, even tinier.

How about more than 3. Not quite so tiny, I suspect.

Put that in your effin pipe and smoke it.

munchkinmaster Thu 04-Apr-13 22:59:05

Thing is all Children get free prescriptions and help for glasses. At the time cb was a universal benefit - so to count up what you get just for being a child is ludicrous. Maybe I should march down the primary school and shout scrounger at all the infants.

HollyBerryBush Thu 04-Apr-13 23:02:17

The Freedom of Information Act disclosed there are only 180 families in the UK, claiming benefit (non working parents), with 10 or more children - and 40,000 in the same boat with 5 or more children.

munchkinmaster Thu 04-Apr-13 23:04:11

And also fucking obscene to be totting up the cost of some deceased childrens meals. Equating each child to a sum of money and little more , just as mick may have done.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 04-Apr-13 23:06:28

If you get working tax credits they act as a barrier to claiming free school meals and healthy start vouchers this means you cannot obtain fsm and the vouchers if you get wtc

So there is one chunk of it gone already.

A LA 3 bed council house in that area will be between £92 pw and £105 pw.

HollyBerryBush Thu 04-Apr-13 23:10:44

if the figures quoted are correct, that equates to 4.5K per annum, per head. I wouldn't like to try and juggle a family on that.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 04-Apr-13 23:34:13

But in all fairness its very unlikely money had anything to do with ether him having lots of kids or him attempting to get custody of the children that left with mum.

Its power and control.

If you are that type of man it is in your interests to have as many kids as possible as each child makes the mother more dependant more vulnerable mostly easier to emotionally manipulate and due to the outlook most victims of DV usually have ( right up until they snap and leave) is a long term thing about wanting to keep the families together and a strange loyalty towards the father of her children so harder to leave.

When she finally does get the courage to leave because she has finally snapped again the children get used to exert power and control,

The most common and effective form of none physically violent domestic abuse used after the mum has got the strength to leave is to go down the whole child residency process. Because it is a legally sanctioned way to attack the mother and use the target she is usually most protective about to intimidate her further.

And you rarely look like a abuser when doing it your just a dad fighting for his kids.

A woman is most at risk of serious assault or murder at the time of leaving the violent relationship and then within the first year. Add that to trying to leave when you have that many children it makes every thing feel much harder.

( from personal experience I know its hard to find refuge places for mothers with lots of children and mums with boys over 12 years old)

To a abusive man placing the woman your abuseing in that situation makes your abuse easier its almost like a prime DV tool for a lack of a better way to word it.

alphablock Fri 05-Apr-13 01:05:51

Just for the record, the reason I asked the question is that I was outraged by both the Daily Mail and George Osborne's comments and the suggestion that this case was in some way caused by the welfare system as this is an appalling conclusion to reach.

There seemed to be a lot of conflicting and misleading figures being quoted in the press, which made me wonder if the numbers were either totally made up or at least being manipulated to serve a purpose, so I wanted to understand whether there was any truth behind the headlines.

There are many other questions I could have asked, such as why a mother and father would endanger their children's lives, how a father could show no real remorse after killing his six children, why their "friend" would boast about being charged with murder etc., but I fear that the mumsnet jury would not be able to adequately answer any of these questions.

WafflyVersatile Fri 05-Apr-13 01:24:12

Presumably they wouldn't need to be earning 60K as child benefit would be paid to any parents whatever they earned so doesn't count. But 60 k sounds so much worse so let's just quite that...

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 05-Apr-13 03:41:31

Op I thought it was quite obvious why you asked so don't think it was vile you doing so.

munchkinmaster Fri 05-Apr-13 06:37:03

No I didnt think you were being vile - I think the papers are. Both on the way they are 'totting up' these kids. And in the way they seem to think this was all 'caused' by benefits. As someone said above it completely misses the point. What's interesting is how he got such control over the women, his pattern with woman after woman, the lack of remorse, the sheer stupidity, how willing or non willing his wife was, how and if this maps on to a wider scale of DV and domestic tyranny in the uk.

I apologise if I offended you op. I'm just so saddened that those poor kids as forgotten and there is no real attempt at analysis, just simplistic knee jerk crap.

lljkk Fri 05-Apr-13 09:25:23

Their net cash income was nowhere near ?60k, the papers are making it up. I think the woman both qualified for Income Support, up to ?2500/yr, but not full WFTC. So then they would get FSM and some of the others.

Cold Winter Payments would be £50 (total) for 2012-2013 winter for DE24 postcode (most winters would be warmer so pay out less). Not getting rich on that.

1) Uniform grant would be maybe £400/yr for all 11 children if all in school (not getting rich on that).

2) "Healthy Start vouchers are for children under the age of four and pregnant woman only"'; max. value of £3.10 per person per week, and only used for food. Some years that might mean an income of circa £360/yr per woman + her kids. Not getting rich on that.

Items 1) and 2) would be included in the income that Lisa took with her when she moved out, though, so probably already included in my figures.

Vile to begrudge people basic clothing, food and medicine. Unless there is a black market in trading food/uniform/prescription for fags booze & tellies, maybe I am naive.

I don't think Mick was claiming anything for himself, btw, not JSA/Incapacity Benefit or DLA. He was notionally a SAHP while partner(s) worked, not so unconventional after all.

However, I thought £650 pcm* was a lot in Derby for that house and if it was privately rented I would half wonder if Philpott was getting a kickback on the stated rent (wouldn't put it past him). Otherwise, 14 people in a 3 bed semi (+caravan+conservatory): doesn't sound like they were excessively housed.

* does HB include council tax? Council tax waived is another £1200 yr or so for the household, but not same as actual cash crossing their threshold either.

Was Philpott conservatory quite nice? DH built ours (quite large but lean-to) for about £1.5k.

Catchingmockingbirds Fri 05-Apr-13 09:50:29

lljkk I think his house was rented from the council, I vaguely remember reading it somewhere. Plus, he had a conservatory built onto it which I don't see a private landlord allowing.

OP you weren't vile in asking this question, you don't need to explain yourself.

TotemPole Fri 05-Apr-13 15:50:48

Child tax credit for 11 children would add up to a fair amount. Isn't it about £50-60 per week per child?

ChazDingle Fri 05-Apr-13 16:16:43

i think the house was from Derby Homes which is housing associaton so more or less same as council.

Also i thought he was on some sort of disability - although i am not 100% on this.

lljkk Fri 05-Apr-13 16:24:59

I just worked thru the calculator with some mockup numbers for Maread Philpott and only came up with £53 per year, because they had NO qualifying childcare costs. So would be better off claiming income support and all the benefits that allows instead of WFTC. I think the newspapers are assuming some huge childcare elements, too, in their ridiculous numbers.

I may have worked thru numbers wrong, though, someone else can check. I don't think they were bright enough to handle WFTC application, I know it baffled plenty of over-educated people like me.

lljkk Fri 05-Apr-13 16:30:01

If Mick Scumpot was claiming any sort of benefit for himself the newspapers would be screaming with specifics about it, no? He is blamed for breeding children & dominating the women so that he could live off of their benefits, rather than get a job for himself.*

The stories say he repeatedly turned his nose up at any sort of paid work offered to him; he couldn't have claimed JSA for long with that attitude.

*I have a GG-grandfather who was accused of exactly the same thing, btw, just in a place & time with no welfare state.

reluctantmover Fri 05-Apr-13 22:41:00

The Maths is not that hard to understand. If the children were allocated the full child tax credits + child benefit + qualified for free school meals (would qualify if no WTC claimed just CTC and you ARE allowed to earn income too as a parent), just this alone is worth around £4000 a year - the figures for CTC and CB are freely available for your perusal, if you are not convinced, CTC is where the large amount of this comes from, not CB. Multiply by 11. Add on housing benefit, add on council tax benefit, add on income support, add on part time work the Telegraph estimated at £7000 a year each female. Add it all up and you'll find that the claims may well be right and if they are and the family had indeed the equivalent net income equating to someone earning £100k gross, that's the top 2% of "salaries" in the UK. If figures are correct, the cash in hand from benefits and 2 small salaries would be over £50k with no rent/council tax, not an insubstantial sum.

FOI act disclosures appear to indicate at least there are only around 190 other families like that in the UK with 10+ children on those levels on benefits. Under the 26k cap per year, if it is indeed carried out, it will mean families roughly with 5+ will get the same amount, 26k in CTC/HB/CTB etc capped, no more, these will be the families hit most by the 26k cap as these are going to be the households where these benefits are over the cap.

Shagmundfreud Fri 05-Apr-13 23:43:36

Things - the vast majority of the Philpotts income would have been spent on feeding, clothing and housing their many children. Six of these children are now dead. As a 'hard working taxpayer' maybe you feel a bit pleased that your tax money no longer pays to feed and clothe them. sad Perhaps you wish they had been deprived of money for food, shelter and housing while they were alive, to save the tax payer even more?

Ffs - why are you arguing to deprive the children of some fuckwit parents of the money that is needed to house, feed and clothe them? Haven't those children got a shit enough hand in life as i
T is?

Catchingmockingbirds Sat 06-Apr-13 09:16:53

How would they have gotten full housing and council tax benefit though with the women working? And why would income support have been awarded if the mothers worked? I assumed with him being a sahp and both women working they'd get child benefit, child tax credits, working tax credits, and maybe depending on how much was brought in, some housing and council tax benefit but certainly not the full benefit.

He wouldn't have been able to claim job seekers with the women working and income support is paid for single parent families with children under 2yrs old is it not?

DP works and is on a very low wage. We get child benefit, child tax credits and working tax credits, and can't claim any other benefits even when I was looking for work too.

FanjoForTheMammaries Sat 06-Apr-13 09:29:44

Sorry but this thread is really distasteful <hides it>

mercibucket Sat 06-Apr-13 09:33:51

No, he didn't kill the kids for the money

Ffs

This is an invention of people who just find it easier to believe financial motives lie at the bottom of every action of 'the poor'. I expect he stabbed one of his previous girlfriends umpteen times for the life insurance? (Clue: no). He behaved that way because he is a disturbed, controlling, abusive bastard.

Op, it is an interesting area to look into if you can take the blinkers off, which some posters just don't want to do. The family must have been mostly on tax credits and cb, as 2/3 of the family worked, and he was, I suppose, a stay at home dad

Daily mail et al - haters of stay at home parents and claimers of cb.

Maybe they'd be better off hating domestic abusers and violent thugs, but what do I know, shrug.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 09:36:21

The obsession over money and benefits is completely missing the point - am saying that not to have a pop at the OP but making a general point.

The real focus should be on how this abusive man was able to continue terrorising women over a period of 30 years without any checks and balances. The judge said after his first conviction that he was "extremely dangerous".

Why aren't more people angry about that?

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 09:38:15

Oh, snap merci

You said it better.

CecilyP Sat 06-Apr-13 09:56:06

How would they have gotten full housing and council tax benefit though with the women working?

You wouldn't! While I don't know much about levels of working tax credit particularly for large families, I do know that housing and council tax benefit go down proportionately. I noticed significant double counting regarding housing benefit in one of the TV news programmes.

1 They worked out the rent at £600 a month, when this was a council house so the rent was probably about half this. (And even renting privately on that estate in Derby would have been much cheaper than £600 per month.)

2 They assumed 100% housing benefit which simply would not have been awarded if they were on working tax credit.

I also agree it is ridiculous to claim that he was trying to get custody of Lisa's children for the benefits as some commentators are claiming. He was doing it to punish her for daring to leave him.

Flippinada, I think a lot of people are angry at the media focus on the benefits, rather than focus on the abuse. I watched the news on the day of the sentencing and there was nothing on the judge's remarks and a whole item on the speculative (and obviously erroneous) benefits that the Philpotts may have received.

munchkinmaster Sat 06-Apr-13 10:00:56

Yes and the ire stoked by people such as George Osborne who are supposed to know better. George should resign. Seriously

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 10:02:30

I hope so Cecily

However quite a few people on MN (if you read one if the many threads on here) have argued at length that it is really all about the benefits.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 10:03:41

Obviously I mean threads about this case, not just any random thread!

mrsjay Sat 06-Apr-13 10:19:46

I think threads about these people and what they claimed is really in bad taste and george osbourne and the daily mail should hang their heads in shame as if these childrens lives have been reduced to what they could earn for their father this man and his wife were scum regardless of any benefits. these numbers are plucked from the air 50k here 30 k there does it matter does it really matter

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 10:22:39

Rather than asking how people can get housing benefit etc and work and get income support, why not look up the rules on income support and how much you can earn on it and how much you can earn and get full child tax benefit etc etc etc, you may just find out how you can earn small amounts AND claim these benefits too, and what is wrong with that! The difference in this family's case is that with so many children, each time one was added, their CTC increased. You cannot blame the family for that either, it's the benefits system which increases CTC with every child and if you're entitled to that full amount, add on CB and free school lunches and that could add up to 4k per year. I'd challenge anyone to find an employer who grants their employee's an extra 4k per year on their salary.

I wish this benefits debate didn't have to be about this family, can it not be about an anonymous family with 10 children who work only a few hours a week or no hours at all?

SqueakyCleanNameChange Sat 06-Apr-13 10:33:10

It's so awful. Nobody ever claims that other domestic murders with a financial element are "the product of the life insurance industry" or "the product of inheritance laws".

JakeBullet Sat 06-Apr-13 10:38:05

As others have said, this man's motives were less about benefit money and more to do with power and control. He didn't want Lisa Willis back for the benefit money but because she had dared to leave him.

I don't know what their income from benefits was because both women worked and without knowing their wage it's impossible to know what the top up was.

I think the figures bandied about in the press are bizarre and seem to swing wildly depending on which paper you read.

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 10:42:22

Money is a factor in many murders, ridiculous to say that it isn't. Someone was sent down only a few weeks ago for murdering his parents for money and that was quite a high profile case.

mrsjay Sat 06-Apr-13 10:43:18

I think so jake it all depends in which paper you read it in, this wasn't about benefit money this was about a feckless man who was so angry that his mistress dared to leave him, it was about control he is beyond scum a power mad control freak who thought/thinks the world revovles around him,

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 10:47:03

Nobody has said that money is not a factor in some or even many murders, have they?

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 10:49:51

The publicity surrounding the murder of the 2 parents did indeed claim UK inheritance laws were the motivating factor in the murders. If the son hadn't stood to inherit according to English law, would he have done it?

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 10:52:41

For that awful man from Derby, money was part of the control, the fact the women's salaries from their jobs and their child tax credits went into HIS bank account and of course the subsequent loss of this money is him losing control. The control was financial, psychological and physical, to argue that money was not a motivating factor is quite puzzling, because all the evidence indicates it was.

TomDudgeon Sat 06-Apr-13 10:53:26

It wouldn't make much difference to him financially if she left because of the cap about to come into force. Well actually it would, 'he' would have to pay for more children on the same amount.
It was about control.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 10:55:37

Perhaps I'm missing something here but I don't understand what you're saying.

Of course some/many murders are motivated by money, has anyone said otherwise?

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 10:56:48

That last post was to reluctantmover

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 11:03:12

Besides which (pertinent point) there want am intention for the children to die, hence the manslaughter charge.

He wanted to be the big hero and rescue the kids; although by all accounts he didn't put himself out much on that score.

I'd say the money was a nice bonus for him but certainly wasn't the driving motivation behind the crime.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 11:03:41

"wasn't an intention"

mrsjay Sat 06-Apr-13 11:37:19

I do get that money was a factor to his control but to list what they all claimed on benefits its a bit distasteful IMO

TidyDancer Sat 06-Apr-13 12:54:22

I agree with the theory that control was the main motivation, I suspect the loss of benefits perhaps contributed, but I suspect the main factor was that he was an abusive man who didn't like to lose to Lisa Willis.

Out of curiosity however, I used the benefit calculator and with some assumptions came up with a figure of just under £57k. That doesn't include free school meals, help with uniform, healthy start vouchers etc. It also doesn't include council tax benefit and assumed no childcare costs. I thought the newspaper were wildly inaccurate as well, but now I'm not so sure.

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 13:25:28

It might be distasteful to list how much the monetary gains/losses were, but it would be equally distasteful to list the money someone would stand to gain by murdering a relative for inheritance / life insurance.

I don't think anyone has argued control was that awful Derby man's motivation in setting up the fire, but to disregard the monetary part of the control is puzzling. It just happens in this case that the majority of lost money was provided in the form of benefits.

Can anyone find an employer who increases salaries each time a child is born to an employee? Why does the state increase child tax credit each time a child is born? BTW I'm a great defender of child benefit remaining universal and think that child benefit is simply not enough in the UK - just look at other European countries where rates for 2 or more children are far more, you receive them often whether unemployed (and paid in social security) or whether in employment, meaning that the state treats people more equally than happens in the UK.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 13:40:33

Reluctantmover - about CTC - you're right, I doubt you could find an employer who increases pay every time an employee has a child, but what does happen is that CTC is available for anyone, working or not, dependant on what their income is. If you have say one child, and your partner and/or yourself works and you earn above the threshold you won't get any CTC, but if you have another child that could push your earnings under the threshold and you will get some CTC...CTC isn't just for people who are not working, it applies to anyone who meets the earnings criteria - that is my understanding from talking to those in the know.

No idea how that will all work with universal Credit.

Ministrone Sat 06-Apr-13 13:43:26

Agreed, but once someone is in the public eye these days their "private life" is dissected by the media and they may not be the most well-informed people around.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 13:51:30

Yes it's part of it but so is domestic abuse. Why aren't people going mad about that?

MP would have been the same person regardless if whether he was on benefits, independently wealthy or simply just comfortably off.

I actually can't believe I've been drawn into this tedious and soul destroying discussion yet again so I'm off.

TheBigJessie Sat 06-Apr-13 14:46:19

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm
How about more than 3. Not quite so tiny, I suspect.

8% of families claiming benefits have three or more children. The percentage of those who have more than three must therefore be even smaller.

www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truth-and-lies-about-poverty-infographics/

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 15:03:05

Flaminhoolah is right, CTC depends on income and if you're working under 16 hours a week, you can claim IS as well and if your income is low, you can also gain full CTC. The CTC was designed to give a minimum income to families, but for those with large families, say 5 or more, the rates are such that many families are indeed better off working not at all or less than 16 hours a week, it is a crazy system for these families that actually encourages parents with large families to not work or hardly work at all. work should pay, irrelevant the number of children you have, unfortunately work often doesn't pay at all for those with large numbers of children, it pays more not to work.

If I had the power in my hands, I'd be looking at higher child benefit, I'd be changing its name too, in order to reflect its worth as a tax break, I'd increase the rates substantially, but after perhaps 3 or 4 children, I'd reduce the rates, I'd do away completely with child tax credit, as the rates of child benefit would replace part of its value. Then as people earn more, they keep what they earn, they don't lose a benefit - this decrease effect discourages people from going out to earn more.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 15:09:11

Flipinada - there are another two threads like this that I'm aware of...

Reluctant - I agree there, CTC and WTC are introduced and they're not helpful really. When you think that you can work full time and still be eligible for benefits because minimum wage is what it is it leaves me scratching my head.

TomDudgeon Sat 06-Apr-13 15:15:24

By September, and most places starting before that, the most a couple with children could claim will be £500 a week that's 26k a year
If they could have claimed for Lisa's family separately that's another £500 a week so 52k a year
She would have to have been live
elsewhere though

It doesn't make sense to say getting her back would make him better off

Getting her back meant he could take the money, however much of it, and control her freedom though it.

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 15:30:00

TomDudgeon has just pointed out that the 26k per household cap might indeed be got around by deliberately splitting up families so that one parent could take some children and one parent could take the rest. Out of those 190 families with 10+ children in the UK claiming benefits, that's exactly what they could do! Then you get 2 lots of 26k! Splitting families up already happens, in order to claim benefits, it could just increase the numbers, it's a bit like legal tax avoidance to me. I wonder if this cap per household has been thought through. Surely abolishing WTC/CTC and CB and replacing it with something which encourages work without losing so much in "benefits" for children is what we need.

TomDudgeon Sat 06-Apr-13 18:14:29

The cap doesn't make sense as it includes housing benefit. Some places that could be 150 others 1000 so really large families in expensive areas have a lot less to live off after rent than the same size family in a cheap area

TomDudgeon Sat 06-Apr-13 18:16:47

Ok my figures are extreme but you get the point

difficultpickle Sat 06-Apr-13 18:27:09

Squeaky that's not correct. Plenty of people are killed for life insurance or inheritance money. There was a story in the paper last week about the trial of a man who had killed his parents for an inheritance of £200,000.

SqueakyCleanNameChange Sat 06-Apr-13 18:52:24

Yes of course they are.
But do we decide that this is an indictment of inherent flaws in the life insurance/inheritance system about which we should have a national debate?

TotemPole Sat 06-Apr-13 19:27:56

How would someone be better off working under 16 hours and staying on benefits rather than moving on to WTC?

If you're on JSA or IS you can only earn £20 or £25 a week and then they take off £1 for every £1 you earn. If you work over 16 hours, you can claim WTC. This is worked out on a sliding scale.

If you take 2 comparable families. Same number of children, same number of adults, same rent, council tax etc. The working family will have more money coming in each week than the family on benefits.

It's the outgoings that will be different, such as the extras you get on IS/JSA and work related expenses. Free school meals and any school related grants or concessions can add up, especially for families with 2 or more children.

For many, working will increase weekly travel costs. They might have to pay for childcare. I realise people can get a childcare element in WTC but they still have to find the extra 30%.

Travel, childcare, and housing costs are issues for everyone. Maybe the government could spend some time focusing on this. The knock on effect would make lower paid jobs more viable.

Also, I thought there were plans to bring in means testing for things like free school meals? So those on lower incomes but on WTC could still get something. I don't know if I misunderstood the plans or if they've been abandoned. They should remove the all or nothing situation of passport benefits.

reluctantmover Sat 06-Apr-13 19:52:43

well if you have to choose 16 hours work and lose right to free school lunches or 15 hours and have right to school lunches, which one would you chose? If you have 10 free school meals, that's worth an average of £25 per school day (apparently £2.50 is now average) or over 180 school days that's £4500 for a school year. Absolutely ridiculous to have an arbitrary cut-off, it means those with large families would think really hard before any work they take on putting them at risk of losing such a concession. I think it would be hard to argue this is not a ridiculous situation. Same goes for IS, cut-off earning £25, but keeping IS gives access other benefits so earning a small amount and not going higher so as to lose IS also also disincentive to work more.

I think the cap really does have to include HB I'm afraid. A working family not entitled to HB will choose to rent/buy a house in an area they can afford, if it means not living near family and somewhere cheaper then they have to do it, with current HB, those on it have been able to live in housing that others not entitled to HB cannot afford, so really why should someone on HB be able to? That's the whole point, they include it and those on HB find they have less left in their pocket if they choose to live in a more expensive area, same as families not entitled to HB, so this is fairer on all, plus it should mean those meany landlords who super inflate rent because they know tenants are on HB will find they lose tenants, they'll have to lower their rents.

Squeeky, maybe people are not up in arms about inheritance laws or life insurance rules because they are fair?? IF someone had killed for a reason such as cashing in on an inheritance law which seemed unfair to many, I'm sure that would make headlines too.

TotemPole Sat 06-Apr-13 21:20:37

reluctantmover, yes, I think we agree on this. It isn't the cash, the actual benefits, but what the passport benefits give people access to.

I don't think we need to only consider very large families to see the difference this can make.

Not sure if I read it on MN or elsewhere. A working mother with 3 secondary aged children was paying over £40 a week for bus fare to and from school. A comparable family on benefits had free bus passes for their children. Then add on 3x school meals, and uniform grants etc.

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