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.

Souredstones Fri 19-Jul-13 08:40:28

YAY! A benefits bashing thread!

Dahlen Fri 19-Jul-13 08:41:25

Loads to cover what exactly?

gamerchick Fri 19-Jul-13 08:41:51


deepfriedsage Fri 19-Jul-13 08:42:23

For how many people? How much is rent?

WorrySighWorrySigh Fri 19-Jul-13 08:44:25

Doesnt it depend on what those benefits have to cover? Not bad for an able-bodied single person with no commitments but then an able-bodied person with no commitments wouldnt get £20k.

Any way, what would be the point in the government paying benefits with one hand then taking them away as tax with the other except to keep more tax officers in gainful employment!

All in all: YABU

Souredstones Fri 19-Jul-13 08:44:55

What i'd love to do is challenge a couple to live on benefits. Not in their current home, but to be given a new property, have to furnish and carpet it, and stock up their fridge, freezer and cupboards...on an allowance the same as benefits (with budgeting loans permitted). It'd be interesting to see how far they get...

Runningchick123 Fri 19-Jul-13 08:45:13

I think it depends on where they live and how much their rent is. In most areas of the country it is quite a lot, but in areas where the housing costs are high then it might not stretch very far.
Also, lets not forget that that 20k doesn't include free school meals, which can add up to a tody sum if you have several children, and it also doesn't include things like free dental care or free prescriptions which the working family will have to pay for. All the extras add a few grand on top of the 20k.
Regardless, I would rather be living in a working household as the govt are screwing around with benefits and people reliant on unemployment benefits are constantly in limbo and at the mercy of the govt.

MrsBucketxx Fri 19-Jul-13 08:45:55

a family of 4.

not bashing at all, just a little injust against those who work and earn much less,

Souredstones Fri 19-Jul-13 08:47:22

A lot of people I know who are on less than £20k a year HOUSEHOLD income do so in order to get the maximum tax credit allowance. They could easily up their hours if they wanted to but choose not to.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 08:47:28

I earn around £18,000 per year before tax and NI. I have a mortgage of £380 per month on a one bed flat, a car, have hobbies, go out a lot. I have some savings, not a huge amount, and a pension from a previous job. I don't live extravagantly but usually have a holiday in the UK and a weekend or two away most years (CenterParcs and London last year). I even had a week in Italy last year.

Admittedly, I am a single person. But I seem to live well enough.

Dahlen Fri 19-Jul-13 08:47:39

But the people who work and earn much less will have more money than that because they will be getting tax credits which will top them up to an income more than the amount received by the family on benefits.

75% of people in this country receive tax credits.

Most of that sum will be Housing Benefit rather than cash-in-hand benefits.

JassyRadlett Fri 19-Jul-13 08:47:51

Apart from your generalisations and lack of understanding of others' situations or in-work benefits people receive, either your maths or your understanding of the tax system is dodgy.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 08:48:57

*I mean I don't currently pay into a pension because I have one sitting there from a previous job but it's 25 years until I can get at it.

Jinty64 Fri 19-Jul-13 08:50:27

That is roughly what we have after paying tax. It is certainly enough to live on, as we do, but we are a fairly frugal family of five and a dog. There is not a lot left over for niceties. We don't get FSM etc. that would help.

theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 08:53:26

Why does any question about benefits have to be bashing? I know some are but to be fair, why shouldn't people ask? Most people pay into the system, is it a secret what is paid out? Not all people on benefits are saintly surely? I will not voice my own opinion as I haven't paid tax for more than a decade but I do think that both sides should be looked to have a voice. Why can't people ask and question the system they are also stuck with? Not everyone is a socialist and that doesn't make them automatically evil.

MadBusLady Fri 19-Jul-13 08:54:33

Hooray, we never discuss this topic enough.

JakeBullet Fri 19-Jul-13 08:55:17

Hmm...YABU I think.

Out of £20k remove £9000 in housing benefit, then another £1500 in council tax credit as the claimant actually never sees this money and their actual income is £9500 in the bank out of which they have to do food, gas, electric, water, travel, clothing, sudden bills etc. it is minimal really.

But then wages are crap too.

Yes it IS loads and that is why rent (not benefits) should be capped, and why public transport should be subsidised and nationalised. Taxpayers are lining landlords pockets and transport shareholders.

It's shocking.

TabithaStephens Fri 19-Jul-13 08:55:41

It is loads.

PearlyWhites Fri 19-Jul-13 08:58:07

Yabu OP and not that bright if you believe the media/ government spin on benefit claimants.

theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 08:59:05

Maybe people post about this because it affects them. Better than the usual thrice weekly middle class dramas of cycling, dog shit or where to park your bloody great big child carrier.

usualsuspect Fri 19-Jul-13 08:59:08

Let them starve and live in a cardboard box.

NeoMaxiZoomDweebie Fri 19-Jul-13 09:00:35

throw them in the workhouse. Let them clean shoes in the street....come on OP....bash those scroungers!

NeoMaxiZoomDweebie Fri 19-Jul-13 09:01:48

starlight quit your jibber jabber fool! What you talking about capping rents for??

Cap rents and you'll have entire families with small children on the streets or in single rooms...just like Victorian times.

Sparklymommy Fri 19-Jul-13 09:02:07

I think school meals should be free for everyone tbh.

I'm not sure the previous poster who said people on under 20k in work could earn more is wrong I think. My hubby earns 19k BEFORE tax and NI and works damned hard for it. He works 7-3 five days a week and 6-4 on Saturdays.

We cope. And pay all the bills. And have 4 kids, who certainly don't go without. But it is frustrating (and misleading) when people go on about 20k in benefits because it does sound like a lot.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 09:02:58

middle class dramas

yes because if you are MC, your life is always a bed of roses. and it makes you immune to death, illness, unemployment etc etc.

theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 09:03:24

Is that what she was saying? I thought she was asking if 20k in benefits is the same as earning 30k but not paying tax? Isn't that a reasonable question? I work tax free and my salary for mortgage applications is calculated at just over double what I get to create a gross.

How will capping rents put families on streets?

Capping benefits when rent is so high will put families on streets.

BinarySolo Fri 19-Jul-13 09:05:47

It should never be better to be on benefits. Work should always pay more. Sadly, I think there are people that are better off on benefits, due to only low paying jobs being available. And there are people that are able body but never worked and others that have loads of kids to claim more (for example the Philpots). Benefit fraud is a problem too.

I think all of these problems need addressing in a non hysterical way. I think people 'playing' the system are the minority and there should be more help for those in low paid jobs to make work the better option financially.

It's not an easy problem to fix and I have no faith that the current government will get anywhere close.

Dahlen Fri 19-Jul-13 09:06:43

Sparkly, if your only income is your DH's salary, then you are not claiming what you're entitled to. Are you earning? What tax credits and child benefit do you get?

Runningchick123 Fri 19-Jul-13 09:06:44

Jake bullet - whils I do agree that once housing costs are removed that the benefit claimant has a mediocre amount to live on let's not forget that a worker with a take home pay of 20k also has a mortgage / rent and council tax to pay and has a mediocre amount to live on after these deductions too.

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 09:07:52

That includes rent and council tax. I'm pretty sure it also includes child benefit and tax credits for more than one child, maybe disability benefits too. I worked it out, I used to receive - £600 per month, give or take a few pence. That's with one child an no disabilities. Out of that I had to pay my gas and electric (£120/month - card and key meters, so horribly expensive and I wasn't allowed to change them), phone contract (£30/month and needed), internet/tv package (£60/month ish, I don't remember exact figure, but needed), tv licence (£12.50/month, so I could watch the tv I'm paying for), and the rest was sucked up by groceries, bus fares etc.

Now, I know I've not even accounted for half the figure I quoted, but factor in that the money came in weekly or fortnightly, which made it difficult to budget. And a month is not exactly 4 weeks, so I had to time my shopping around the bills. Throw in late charges when it inevitably goes wrong because an automated payment won't go in on a bank holiday, the expense of baby formula and nappies (I wanted to bf but unfortunately couldn't), a little something for's very easy to end up broke. And I'm lucky too, I don't have a car to run or debts to repay.

And of course, if you miss one meeting - even, say, if your child was in hospital - they sanction you. You have to jump through a thousand hoops for the most basic standard of living. And it's soul destroying.

Cravingdairy Fri 19-Jul-13 09:10:46

I am paraphrasing -'The only reason to look into your neighbour's bowl is to see if he has enough' - Louis CK

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 09:12:47

Obviously my figure excludes rent and council tax - as someone said upthread, I never saw any of that, it got paid direct.

theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 09:13:23

It's a nice sentiment but not very realistic.

NeoMaxiZoomDweebie Fri 19-Jul-13 09:15:43

Craving Louis CK is a bloody hero. I love that man.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 09:20:22

I think it's important to discuss the cost of wages, benefits and so on.

Unfortunately the nanny state that was labour, created a situation where everyone was knocked down or topped up to the same level, 50% tax for those earning 'too much' and massive top-ups for those on 'too little'

Basically it's made everyone reliant on top ups, pushed the cost of living through the roof and given
us one of the most fucked up economies ever.

They need to sort it out.

Craving Dairy, really you needed to spend 60 quid a month on Internet/TV a month????

And you know what us who work jump through hoops everyday to juggle home life and children so you having to rock up at the job centre every so often really is not much of a hardship is it??

Maybe benefits should be capped at what you could earn in a job for which you are qualified ergo no one benefiting above and beyond what they could earn if they were in employment?

BonaDrag Fri 19-Jul-13 09:25:58

You know what the problem is? These scroungers just don't know how to make a chicken last a whole month.

eretrew Fri 19-Jul-13 09:29:11

YANBU its an enormous amount of money

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:29:50


theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 09:30:30

It is pointless people trying to offer a balanced view. These threads are always going to be dominated by the socialist idealists. Meanwhile in the real world.....

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:31:15

I need a like button for CravingDairy's last post

Meanwhile in the socialist world they are picking cash off of the money tree to pay for subsidised transport and free school meals for all.

usualsuspect Fri 19-Jul-13 09:33:03

They should catch their own food, you can feed feed a family of 4 for a week from a squirrel. Chicken is too good for the likes of them.

MrsDeVere Fri 19-Jul-13 09:33:30

Thank God!
I was just thinking 'you know what? There are never any threads about benefits on MN. There is a particular lack of ones started by people with little understanding of how they work, what they included and what its like to be on them'

Hurrah for this one. This subject is just not discussed enough.

angelos02 Fri 19-Jul-13 09:36:53

Of course it is loads. It is more than the average monthly salary. Its more than I earn working full time. System is so fucked up.

theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 09:37:28

Yay another thread about benefits straight from the 6th form common room

usualsuspect Fri 19-Jul-13 09:39:31

It's discusting

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 09:41:17

Jesus Christ guys can we not have a bloody discussion about it without people stamping their feet like little children?

My worry is that as the situation escalates, benefits will become more and more the attractive option.

I think not enough people are prepared to upskill, look at that guy on the programme, out of work for 4 years but it never occurred to him to go back to uni in that time and actually get a qualification or whatever.

theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 09:42:07

I disagree that most are by benefits bashers, most are by people saying look what the nasty government is doing now, showing no understanding of what it is like to work but live a damp cramp hole and not eat much for the last week every month so you can pay the council tax.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 09:42:35

Sparkly you claim TC as well I would hope and CB

£20K is nowt after rent, bills, council tax etc is factored in - I never understand these threads - I mean if it's so fucking wonderful on benefits why not do it yourself OP

I think it's because we all know the reality is very different

TabithaStephens Fri 19-Jul-13 09:43:09

Too many people still think they are in the 70s, when you could leave school without any qualifications and get a job. A lot of parents seem to have this attitude, saying their are no jobs for their children, when what they mean is their children are unemployable.

usualsuspect Fri 19-Jul-13 09:44:14

<stamps feet,fucks off to the beach>

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 09:44:25

Filee777 the way this government is cutting jobs it wont be an attractive options - it will be the ONLY option - we lots 55% of our staff last year (public sector LA dept) and we have another round of cuts next year - that's a lots of staff suddenly unemployed!

theodorakisses Fri 19-Jul-13 09:45:31

No because as long as people continue to discount the opinion of anyone who does not share their politics, these threads will continue. I am absolutely of serious threads being belittled by people who pend all day jest looking or an excuse o take the piss out of anyone who doesn't have far left politics. It is so patronising and ignorant.

angelos02 Fri 19-Jul-13 09:46:44

YY Tabitha I also think loads of graduates think they are 'above' certain roles. I had a great job until about 3 years ago. Recession hit & I'm now earning about half what I used to. It sometimes irks me working for people with less qualifications than me but it would never cross my mind to sit on my arse at home doing nothing.

RonaldMcDonald Fri 19-Jul-13 09:46:57

Scrap tax credits

If we really want to save money we should limit and then end all tax credits.
Stop paying any tax credits for children. Pay vouchers for childcare provision to parents (for their first two children) to allow them to work.

Make working tax credits only available to couples if both parents work <no matter what age their children are>
Couples should then only receive them if their combined 30+hr salary is less than £25k

Single parents should only qualify for working tax credits if they work 24+ hrs and are paid less than £15k

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 09:47:31

Madamecastafiore, I think you were replying to me, not Craving.

Capping for qualifications wouldn't work, I have sod all qualifications. But I worked full-time before I had my child, and lost my job because of cutbacks shortly before finding out I was pregnant.

£60 ish. I'm pretty sure it was a tad less, but rounded up. Internet is a requirement in today's world, a lot of job hunting is online, and having shopping delivered is cheaper than the bus to and cab home from the supermarket. Plus no Internet means no MN! As for the tv, it's not a necessity, but a package was only slightly more expensive. You can't exactly begrudge me the small luxury, it's the only one I had!

I would love to be working. Jobcentres are horrible, and it's not pleasant being treated like scum because you're on benefits. They act as if I'm a total moron.

I'm not saying I have it harder than anyone else. I'm just pointing out the view from the other side. It's not exactly a bed of roses.

I think whoever said we keep discuwsing it because it is an important issue has it right

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 09:51:47

Ronald that would put me on the dole - I am a lone parent working 22.2 hours (with no option to increase hours) - 3 children (all born in wedlock when we didn't claim anything) - I earn more that £15k

I couldn't afford childcare and holiday childcare without TC - so that's a great plan grin

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:51:49

Ronald - how are you going to create all the jobs that people will need so that they can earn enough to eat food?

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 09:51:52

There should be a culture of at least one skilled worker in each family, rather than the current trend of there being none and expecting to get a living wage from top ups.

Benefits should be scrapped after two children for everyone

Neglect laws should be changed to cover financial neglect from both residential and absent parents.

The ignorance on this thread is astonishing but not surprising. DH and I are benefits-dependent atm; I'm not fit to work (health problems) and he was made redundant.

Including child benefit, tax credits, housing benefit etc we get about £15k a year. Of course we don't see the housing benefit or council tax credit. And when the system screwed up recently and stopped DH's JSA we were living on about £300 a month for all bills, food etc.

University is bloody expensive. Night classes are expensive. In some parts of the country there are 20 JSA applicants for every job; the national average is 4. Plus all the non-JSA applicants of course.

When DH and I were working we paid tax. And were happy for our taxes to go towards benefits payments because we are all just a redundancy, accident or illness away from being benefits-dependent.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:53:24

some people do live in cloud cuckooland (filee)

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:54:16

TheJoyful, these threads must be hard to read for you sad

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:55:37

I don't spend any of the day looking to take the piss out of right-wing people.

I just find it sickmaking that they talk about people on benefits like they are some subspecies.

And come out with silly idealistic ideas which involve everyone on benefits just skipping out and getting a job in 5 minutes.

Didactylos Fri 19-Jul-13 09:55:52

MrsDeVere grin

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 09:55:54

University is only expensive once your earning money, night courses are free if you are on benefits/top ups.

Of course the joy in a change of culture is that people will start actually thinking about this stuff before starting a family rather than relying on support

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:55:56

Or stopping people's money so their children starve.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 09:57:26

Yes..everyone should just go to university then they will magically get high paying jobs.

it isn't like there are loads of graduates already who can't get jobs is it hmm

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 09:58:08

hahahaha yes because when you are at university you don't need to pay rent or eat food or buy books or anything grin

Tbh Fanjo they make me both cross and sad - there are so many people willing to believe the government's misleading rhetoric about "scroungers" and to condemn people with only limited understanding of what it can be like.

filee I don't know where you are but here university and night courses are definitely not free. And if you get offered a job you have to take it so would probably have to drop out of uni unless the hours were complementary.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:05:15

Well then that something that needs to change, people should be encouraged to study, not for degrees in 'media' or 'art' but things that are actually going to get you work.

I see lots of people getting degrees in pointless things but very few who actually look at the market and upskill accordingly.

Children won't 'starve' we pay out 70 a week to children on benefits, that's plenty enough to feed the whole family let alone each.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:07:23

£70 for food and bills and clothes and stuff - yeh that's amazing

and media and art are careers - people do work in these areas you know

We need creative people for a vibrant economy

spacegoat Fri 19-Jul-13 10:08:29

20k on benefits seems like alot. When dh and I started out he, I and dd1 lived on 11k. No housing benefits, no child tax credits (it was a long time ago). We really struggled, and would've been better off on benefits.

BUT things got better, jobs changed, promotions were won. We made the right decision in our case. Luckily, we were well educated and that opened doors. Worked hard, and that opened doors, and actually some of it is just good luck.

That doesn't mean we begrudge those on benefits though. There are often very complex issues around those on benefits long term. We get that.

If you look at the statistics very little of our tax money goes to those on benefits. It's really a drop in the ocean.

IneedAyoniNickname Fri 19-Jul-13 10:08:53

Ok, I'm a single mum of 2. I get roughly £15,600 per year. I would never complain as, like people say I don't work for it. Oh and free school meals which are worth £20 per week for how ever many weeks they are in school

However. £9,568 of that goes straight into my landlord pocket. I happen to know he has no mortgage on the property, and refuses to do anything other than the most basic repairs.

Thanks to my ex declaring himself bankrupt, and leaving me with massive debts, I pay £780 per year on gas and electric debts. My council tax has gone from nothing to £156 per year, which admittedly is not a lot. There are other debts that he left me with that I am currently negotiating on.

Once I've paid those things, I'm left with £5,096 to feed and clothe 3 of us. Then pay gas and electric, water rates etc.

It's not a lot. And many people I know IRL are horrified when they hear how much I live on. But, like I said I am grateful for what I get,.and don't feel I can.complain.

Child benefit goes down after first child. And its not 70 per week even for the first child

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:13:33

Child benefit is £13 for the second and successive children

Tax credits are around £62

£70 was quite a conservative estimate, it's actually more like £80.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:14:37

And when the media industry starts crying out for workers I am sure people will train in it.

Fact is you cannot expect to study something with no jobs and then fly into a job, doesn't work like that in any country.

MrsDeVere Fri 19-Jul-13 10:15:28

That would be great! It would end up putting me and my OH on full benefits instead of being the tax payer part timers we are now.

OH has MS so works part time.
Because he wants and needs to keep working I also work part time because if I worked full time I would be unable to support HIM to keep working. He can't do work AND all the other stuff we do day to day. So I do that for both of us.
If I had to work more hours he wouldn't be able to pick up the slack.
If he had to work more hours he would probably last about a week before collapse.

So between the two of us we do a full time job.
Plus the fact the pair of us have been working for nearly 60 years between us.

Be careful what you wish for. Disability, bereavement and sickness can happen to anyone.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:15:39

yes for everything the child needs (and I don't agree that it's that much) including a roof, heat, light, clothes, food, school trips, shoes ...

JADS Fri 19-Jul-13 10:16:07

These threads are so sad.

The real issue is the insane cost of rent/housing. I may be wrong but large amounts of welfare costs go on hb often to private ll. I really wish the government had tried harder to stop house prices rising. Even with the so called price crash, some areas were barely touched. Now london house prices are set to go up by 6%. A lot of people made a lot of money,but the money is like a debt that future generations will pay if that makes sense. And who makes money out of mortgages, the banks of course, oh the irony.

The other massive area of expense are OAPs but somehow the media never report this. Not saying that they don't deserve money, only that people will live longer and this will only get worse..

spacegoat Fri 19-Jul-13 10:17:08

Be careful what you wish for. Disability, bereavement and sickness can happen to anyone.

This ^^

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:17:30

plenty of people work in the media industry - you know that right? you know TV, news papers, films, the internet that kind of thing?

not everyone is cut out to be an engineer grin

DownstairsMixUp Fri 19-Jul-13 10:19:54

These threads always make me sad. So many ignorant people when it comes to benefits. Like a lot of others have said 20k isn't that much really, and you won't see the HB and council tax yourself, so it is a lot less than that. People keep bashing benefits and it shouldn't be about that. The minimum wage is piss poor and hasn't gone up in line of the prices of other things going up like food, electric, gas, council tax. 6.19 an hour is disgraceful!

StormyBrid Fri 19-Jul-13 10:21:08

I expect twenty grand a year does sound like loads, if you're working for less than that. That doesn't mean benefits are too generous. It means wages are too low. It baffles me how so many people don't see this.

JADS Fri 19-Jul-13 10:21:40

Thanks ineedanewnickname your posts really illustrates where a large percentage of the money. I am sorry your ex is a twat. Is it worth considering bankrupcy yourself? Your position is awful.

Filee check your maths. Where does 70 per week come from

Ah hang on, youre not just talkig about cb. But then you run into other issues around the calculation.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:23:22

The media industry does not need graduates right now, that's my point, what we need is it specialists, social workers, child workers, nurses, doctors and plenty of other people.
That its such an insane suggestion to so many that people actually train in something they can actually get a job in to support their family and perhaps curb their breeding a little bit rather than expecting the state to pay for their kids makes me despair, completely.

burberryqueen Fri 19-Jul-13 10:25:03

perhaps filee is thinking of £70 a month per child? I receive £140 a month for two altho as most of you know that is not quite 50.50 per child.

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 10:25:14

What areas have jobs available? And what if you have no interest in/aptitude for these areas? I happen to be studying a fairly creative subject, but it's one of very few industries that are growing, and I always have the option of becoming self-employed. Most people aren't so lucky.

House prices are ridiculous. Childcare costs are ridiculous. Living costs are ridiculous. And none of that is going to change, because the people at the top are comfortable, and the rest of us can take a running jump as far as they're concerned.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:25:41

how do you know they don't need workers - they are still recruiting hmm

you know that the government has CUT social workers, child workers, nurses etc don't you?

Good point about OAPs JADS.

According to the DWP Income Support and Working Tax Credits (both paid to those in work but on low incomes) in the financial year 2011-2012 amounted to £13.8bn. In contrast to this just £4.9bn was paid to those claiming Jobseekers Allowance. The same DWP figures show that welfare costs are divided as follows:

Elderly – 42.3%
Low income – 20.8%
Families – 18.4%
Sick and disabled – 15.5%
Jobseekers – 2.6%
Other – 0.4%

StormyBrid Fri 19-Jul-13 10:26:59

Great idea, filee - I'd love to train to be a doctor. Are you volunteering to fund that? Because the state seemingly has no plans to - that would cost the taxpayer precious pennies.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:27:36

Child tax credits are £60 a week, child benefit is £13/20 per child.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:28:22

exactly Joyful people ban on and on about 'us tax payers' paying for people to sit around doing nothing - they fail to realise that it's pensioners they mean not the unemployed grin

2.6% of the total budget 2.6%

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:29:39

Filee777 you do realise that that is part of a families TOTAL weekly budget and has to go toward food, clothing, gas, electric, water rates, council tax, etc etc - it's not actually ring fenced money just for kids grin

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:30:00

Oh yes everyone else should fund you degree stormy

Why don't you pay off your student loan like everyone else?

Goodness sake! The level of entitlement is just ludicrous.

No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket!

IneedAyoniNickname Fri 19-Jul-13 10:30:09

It's something I'm thinking of looking into JADS
Part of me thinks its not fair, afterall I've used the goods the debts are for, and they should be paid for.
But otoh im just fed up with struggling all the time.

JADS Fri 19-Jul-13 10:31:03

The NHS trust where I work has a jobs freeze at the moment Filee, so there are no extra jobs for dr, nurses, physios etc.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:31:31

Pensions have been cut, the retirement age has been raised
What more do you people want?

Pensioners (should) have paid into the system for many years, it's vastly different to a culture of never paying in.

I do think people should be encouraged to find their own pensions though.

StormyBrid Fri 19-Jul-13 10:32:39

Who said anything about entitlement? All I'm pointing out is that training to be a doctor, a social worker, something useful, costs money. Money that unemployed or badly paid people don't have.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:33:34

oh Filee777 you are confusing me - I thought university was free - or at least cheap as chips - so surely the tax payer could pay - I mean think of all the lovely unemployed teachers, social workers, child and family workers, careers advisers, nurses and doctors you would end up with grin

perhaps curb their breeding a little bit rather than expecting the state to pay for their kids. filee your attitude is vile and you seem to have fallen for the media/political propaganda.

Many people on benefits had jobs when their children were born - DH and I had an income of about £40k when DD was born. When I found out I was unexpectedly pregnant with DS (despite using contraception) DH was working 16 hours a week in a supermarket as it was the only job available while I was (and remain) unfit to work.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:34:32

yes I work in education and children's services - we have had a staff freeze for 8 years and a pay freeze for 6 - it's ace

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:39:01

Our doctors and nurses have almost completely been supplied by immigration (thank goodness) for many years because Britons are simply not prepared to train!

I said nothing about university being free.

I have not been 'poisoned' by the media, it's just common sense that there are two many people, too much outlay and the country is screwed! Looking for solutions to that is vital, rather than just throwing your hands in the air
and shouting 'oh it's all SO unfair' at every change.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 10:39:07

Filee - sorry but you are speaking in utter (wrong) cliches.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:39:39

Too many people not two! Sorry

Off to work now.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 10:40:07

ie "No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket!"

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:42:25

Our doctors and nurses have almost completely been supplied by immigration (thank goodness) for many years because Britons are simply not prepared to train! can you provide a link to this factoid ...

2.6% of the TOTAL welfare budget - did you miss this actual fact?

also if you want all these unemployed people to be doctors then 'we' have to pay for their training - you can't have it both ways - i mean will all the money being pumped into the NHS by this government there are bound to be loads of jobs ...<watches pixies dance outside her window>

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 10:42:28

Filee, it's been pointed out that living costs still apply when studying, and student loans won't cover that. Plus childcare while you study, because you can't take a child to lectures or exams. Besides, when you're already struggling it's nigh on impossible to find the extra money to retrain or get more qualifications. Personally I think all education should be free, or at least heavily subsidised, but I don't run the country.

StormyBrid Fri 19-Jul-13 10:44:05

Not sure how you can say Britons aren't prepared to train when there's one right here saying she'd love to but can't afford it.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:44:27

2.6% is unemployment benefits, it casually misses the tax credits bill, which is not only massive it's also derogatory to a healthy economy, inflates the cost of living and makes everyone reliant on the state.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 10:46:02

exactly filee777

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 10:46:42

There should definitely be more help for students to train in necessary jobs, I have already said that. It's a culture change not a person change, I don't blame anyone for claiming benefits/tax credits, it's what you do to survive and support your family. What we have to do is look at ways of improving the situation and that needs to come from the top down not the bottom up.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:48:33

Tax credits allow people to work and pay tax - so you would remove them and create more unemployment...are you George Osborn ????

what inflates the cost of living is utilities companies wanting to make big profits , high taxes on food, clothes and petrol ...stuff like that grin but if MP's NEED a 9% pay rise and £15 a day food allowance surely the rest of us need a basic standard of living

IneedAyoniNickname Fri 19-Jul-13 10:49:14

I've just spent a year at college doing an access to nursing course. The majority of my classmates were British.
Sadly I didn't get into uni this year,.but will re apply.

spacegoat Fri 19-Jul-13 10:49:43

filee777 my media graduate dh pays enough tax to pay the benefits of several families! He wouldn't want to be a social worker , doesn't pay enough! In fact I'm struggling to think of any of my arts and media trained friends who would swap their jobs for the high stress not very highly rewarded jobs you suggest!

Pensioners today, paid in, and paid for the pensioners of their youth. The money they paid in isn't in a special account for them you know. You are paying for them, as will your children, and probably theirs. There are twice as many pensioners as young people. It's causing many problems and there isn't an easy fix.

I can see that you are angry about the benefits system. How would you change it? Public sector jobs gave been slashed. There's no money. NHS is being slowly dismantled. Gove is destroying the education system. House prices are rising again.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 19-Jul-13 10:53:16

<puts hand up>

May I be excused whilst I go and bang my head against a wall before returning to drivel on about passported benefits and ones impact on another?

StormyBrid Fri 19-Jul-13 10:53:26

So there should be more support for students, but I have a distasteful sense of entitlement for bemoaning the current lack of support?

I guess I'm too stupid to train to be a doctor, because I just can't see how that works.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 10:54:39

<Joins Socks at the bike sheds>

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 11:06:03

Oh dear, entitlement.

The only thing we are entitled to is a decent standard of living. When we cannot provide this, the state gives us a hand. That is what the benefits system was designed to do. And even then, it is not always a decent living.

As for the culture aspect, I think growing up with barely a pot to piss in spurs you to give your own children a better life. I can only speak from my own experience, but I'm determined to do the best I can for my son. That meant claiming benefits. There's no shame in it, it was simple reality.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 11:12:41

"No because as long as people continue to discount the opinion of anyone who does not share their politics, these threads will continue. I am absolutely of serious threads being belittled by people who pend all day jest looking or an excuse o take the piss out of anyone who doesn't have far left politics. It is so patronising and ignorant"


KevinFoley Fri 19-Jul-13 11:14:18

The problem is the majority of the benefit goes directly into private landlord pockets. This is what we are reaping for selling off all our social housing stock and not re-investing the money into building more.

Most benefits recipients are also pensioners as has been mentioned above.

BIL is currently on 6 months paid gardening leave, he gets this each time he moves from well paid job to well paid job every few years at his whim. He is living in 4 million pound house with 5 kids in private school and he has no special qualification or skill that warrants this level of renumeration. We hear very little about these people and there are plenty of individuals and corporations who have much, much more than this and yet seem to pay very little tax. Let's tackle the system that allows people to reap so much at the top rather than this endless race to the bottom for the poorest among us.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 11:17:12

no one is discounting anyone's opinion - they are challenging the facts behind it - which they are entitled to do - no of those challenges have been answered so far

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 11:21:29

social housing does not fit requirements. so people have to rent places that are too large as smaller properties are not available as social housing (the bedroom tax etc. etc.).

this does not happen with private rentals where the properties better match demand.

BinarySolo Fri 19-Jul-13 11:23:56

I would like to see a cap on the amount o buy to let properties individuals and organisations can own. I would also like to see repossessed properties being sold to councils for the mortgage value or less to replenish social housing stock, same goes for any properties that are standing empty.

If there were less private landlords then there would be more housing available to buy at hopefully a more reasonable price. Private ll should also be unable to buy property off plan or at least be bottom of a list of people able to.

Rent prices that private ll can charge should be capped at a small % above the mortgage payment to make property investment less attractive and less profitable and more importantly rent more affordable. This would also help cut the hb bill.

I live in SE England, so due to Housing Benefit it looks like I receive an unfair amount (despite living in a tiny one bed bungalow that consists of a bedroom, kitchen and tiny shower room with ever-growing DS) but you wouldn't know it to look at what I actually have to survive on weekly, after bills and food. In fact there isn't really anything left over, which is obviously fair enough. Nothing wrong with wanting the system to be transparent but people always seem to focus on that overall amount without taking into consideration how little of it claimants actually see.

I'm grateful that the help is there and don't feel 'entitled' at all. I know we're lucky to have what we have but I am sick to death of having to 'explain' myself and feel like I should be grovelling because of my position. I'm doing a degree and working my way out of this tight spot but quite often find myself coming across attitudes like some of those here and having to explain myself.

People say they're not benefit bashing then bring up that old old tune about the hard working tax payers who earn less than benefit claimants, which suggests that those people on these benefits are not hard working/in search of work that would pay better than benefits/are in that position due to health reasons etc.

If you're hell bent on scrounging I suppose it's better than being homeless but it is not a nice quality of life to have or a 'lifestyle' I'd suggest anyone take up if they had other options hmm

specialsubject Fri 19-Jul-13 11:30:40

yes, cap rents. Landlords can't pay mortgages, houses get repossessed, tenants lose their homes - or the places aren't available for rent in the first place.

any more smart ideas?

specialsubject Fri 19-Jul-13 11:31:55

yes, make property investment less attractive.

it returns about 3% BEFORE the mortgage.

landlord-haters, grow up and do the sums. Earning money is not a crime.

BionicEmu Fri 19-Jul-13 11:32:58

Something does need to be done about housing costs - the whole housing market is really just ridiculous.

However, I think the whole tax credits thing is ridiculous too. A business pays tax to the government who then give it back to the employees. If the minimum wage is increased then I guess there's a big risk of inflation due to business' wage costs going up & we'll all be back where we started.

So why can't we cut out the middle man? Lower business' taxes paid to the government but raise the minimum wage. The end situation is the same except you can get rid of pushing money to & fro. In addition, it would probably be good for people's morale as they are not relying on tax credits - they can support their families solely from their earnings.

I am certainly no expert at economics so this may all be impossible, but I really do think the money going through government is just ridiculous.

BinarySolo Fri 19-Jul-13 11:38:35

Clearly there are landlords earning more than your suggested 3% as if it didn't pay then people wouldn't do it. I'm not a ll hater and find your response aggressive and a bit childish.

I did say to cap rent at a % above the mortgage repayment. Which would hopefully see a reduction in private rental prices.

First time buyers often don't get a chance to buy new build properties as investment buyers snap them up first, this is especially true of 2 bedroomed cheaper properties.

nickymanchester Fri 19-Jul-13 11:39:25


75% of people in this country receive tax credits.
Most of that sum will be Housing Benefit rather than cash-in-hand benefits.

You really are just making up your own figures here.

75% of people receive tax credits? - you are just so wrong.

There are 25.7 million households in GB - that is the UK excluding NI.

As of April there were 3.2 million working families in receipt of WTC or CTC - 13%.

There were a further 1.4 million non-working families - that is, work less than 16/24 hours as appropriate - who also receive child support through CTC - 6%.

That is a long way short of 75%

Most of that sum will be Housing Benefit

Housing benefit is nothing to do with tax credits. But even here you are way out with your figures. As of February there were just over 5 million households claiming housing benefit - 20% - and just over half of those were single households without children, a large number were single pensioners.

Also, around two thirds are actually in the social rented sector - eg council tenants.

There are also 5.9 million households getting council tax benefit - 23% - and again, a large number are single pensioners.

All the above are from ONS or other government published statistics

So Kevin do you think you could walk in and do your brother in laws job and not fuck it up and lose millions I. The process.

DH has a degree in the history of art but is a cash fund manager. Has got there by starting doing photocopying and filing and learnt the business not qualified per se but has done all fsa qualifications etc.

He has earnt his money and gardening leave is to protect the business not for him to have a nice holiday.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 11:40:56

"benefits" includes child benefit to everyone in the country who has a child, regardless of income.

My husband paid £23,000 in tax, and then we get given a bit back by in CB. Why? Or should we not claim it?

Similarly my grandma and her husband have a huge pension each, and still get the state pension. They were asked to give it back!

Without these unnecessary hand-outs the bill wouldn't be as much.

Benefits should only be paid for 2 children, and only for those that need it

BinarySolo Fri 19-Jul-13 11:41:18

I'd also increase import tax on anything that can be made or grown in this country so that uk manufacturing and farming stands more of a chance. Combined with tax breaks for uk growers and producers to try and keep end product costs he same for the consumer.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 11:45:18

Oh, and scrap the useless arts degrees. They rarely pay off.

In Scandinavia you get paid to study, but ONLY in degrees which are needed. So you don't end up with far too many media graduates. There are only x amount of uni places available each year to fill the job market.

samandi Fri 19-Jul-13 11:45:27

What the heck is gardening leave? Can I have some? Would love to spend six months doing my garden up (if I had one) :-)

SlowlorisIncognito Fri 19-Jul-13 11:45:39

The problem with suggesting people go to uni is that then they lose any entitlement to most of their benifits, and have to live off a student loan, which is really not very much, even if you are a single person with no children.

£20k as a household income is not high. If your household income is lower than that (from work) and you have children, you will be entitled to some help from the state.

Housing costs, especially rent, and the rental market are a real problem, and I do think there should be a rent cap, or at least more security for tennants- it is very expensive having to find a fresh deposit every 6-12 months whilst renting (I know this is not the case for everyone but it can be). It is also harder to find somewhere to rent when being paid housing benifit, which may push up housing costs.

I do think there needs to be some acknowledgement that it's not the unemployed costing us the most money, it is pensioners, but as they are much more likely to vote, the government is reluctant to touch them.

KevinFoley Fri 19-Jul-13 11:51:55

Madamecastafiore believe me he has not 'earnt' that money. His job is low risk so he doesn't risk losing anything, he can however make very money for the company (not skilled work just gift of gab and he got into it by way of family connections, you or I could do it). He can however poach clients so each time he moves he gets 6 months off. he's setting up on his own now so he'll not be paying tax as it'll all go offshore and into various other means of legal avoidance.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 19-Jul-13 12:00:06

Some benefits are ridiculously generous and they really shouldn't be. I'm thinking of child tax credits here. While we have child benefit, we shouldn't need child tax credits as well.

They just pay for people to have children they can't afford.

So what does he do that I could do? If he trades anything he will need a good grasp of the market be it a financial market or not.

And if I had a business where I could employ relatives I would, what has that to do with anyone else.

The big issue in this country is tax credits which have inflated people's standards of living meaning that they are effectively unemployable as will never earn what the good old Labour Party deemed them entitled to.

If you don't earn enough to have x amount of kids tough, can't go on holiday, tough, have to wear hand me downs, tough, and the good old chicken lasting 4 days, well make it. And share a room FFS. All of the above were things we went through growing up. It made us work, and work hard and understand that we are responsible for all of our choices in life and need to be able to support any dependants we choose to have.

Enough of the holding hand out and whining about those who have it and wanting them to give more.

freemanbatch Fri 19-Jul-13 12:06:47

I had to leave my husband a few weeks short of a year ago and due to him stopping me working during our marriage I had to use the safety net of our benefits system to survive. I get nothing close to £20k but it is just about enough to make ends meet even though I have been left with a huge mortgage to pay.

My only real issue with the benefits system is that it encourages people to rent rather than to try and maintain their mortgage while they look for work. Moving house is a huge thing to go through and it takes months in which you can't focus on looking for work properly but Mortgage interest help is only available for two years whereas rent will be paid forever. I don't think the sate should buy people houses but my mortgage interest help is £200 a month and my rent entitlement is £475 a month so financially it would make more sense to pay the mortgage interest help rather than to pay more money out to help landlord build their buy to let empire.

Beastofburden Fri 19-Jul-13 12:15:37

There is something wrong with a system that leaves a sensible and self-denying family on £20k a year after tax still genuinely and honestly in need- which I do believe is true in many cases, including those posting here.

We all have the issue that some of our money we never see- paying private rents or a mortgage is always money we can't really think of as our own, on benefits or not. Our disposable income is always disappointingly much less than our salary, sigh. But if your disposable income drops below a base level, you have almost zero flexibility. It seems very bad that £20k gross after-tax income would leave a famaily in that situation. It does also look as if posters say this is more likely with a benefit £20k than an earned £20k.

I think that one problem is a large amount of that £20k is going straight into over-priced social housing rental bills, making some not-very-nice landlords seriously rich. I wish I thought that the effect of the rental cap would be to force those rental prices down, rather than to force families out of their homes.

The experiment of outsourcing our social housing has been a disaster. I do not understand why, if we are all supposed to be a nation of home-owners, the government doesn't want to own its own social housing, instead of renting it off some very greedy, untrustworthy and unsavoury landlords.

The other issue is pre-existing debt. I wish there were a central community bank that would buy up existing debt and then just charge a sensible, low %age. They could take their repayments at source from benefits, so they wouldnt need to charge over the odds like private banks, who justify it by saying that people with poor credit ratings need to pay more, because more people in that position default. What that means is that honest people with poor credit ratings have to pay the whole cost of dishonest people with ditto. It's unaffordable to service a payday loan. They ought to be illegal anyway.

Too much of your benefits money is going to greedy private landlords and greedy dodgy unregulated lenders. Tax payers who fund this, ought to make more of a fuss. It's miserable for you and infuriating for us.

twistyfeet Fri 19-Jul-13 12:28:27

Has someone pointed out that a, the family on benefits of 20K doesnt see most of that as more than half goes to a landlord and b, a working family earning 20K maybe also be getting up to 10K on top of that 20K salary in benefits (housing benefit, CTC, child benefit) if they have 3 or 4 kids.

You cant compare the 2 as the 'in pocket' amounts are so very different

Most of our salary goes to the bank to pay the mortgage too, as well as gas, electric, child care etc.

And fuck me if there is not another huge chunk we do not see by way of the tax we pay.

SoniaGluck Fri 19-Jul-13 12:33:35

Oh, and scrap the useless arts degrees. They rarely pay off.

Just to clarify, exactly which degrees are you advocating that they scrap?

Runningchick123 Fri 19-Jul-13 12:35:09

Twisty feet - the working family will also have a mortgage or rent and cconcil tax to pay so they won't see a chunk of their money either. And out of the working families top up tax credits they will have to pay for school meals, dental costs, prescription costs and travel to work costs. So the working family has a lot more expenses to meet so might not be much better off.
I really can't understand the argument that the benefit claimants don't get 20k because they have to pay their rent out of that - working people don't live in their houses for free either!

twistyfeet Fri 19-Jul-13 12:40:42

Working families on 20K, if renting, will get some housing benefit. We did. And CTC ON TOP of that 20k. While those on benefits CTC is included in that sum
<bangs head against wall>
I know because we've done both. Been on 20K and been on benefits and we were far far better off on 20K a year. And just how much do people spend at the dentist and on scripts each year to keep citing it? Kids are free and me and DH dont go, on benefits or in work.

Beastofburden Fri 19-Jul-13 12:51:09

twistyfeet- I did say that about salaried families also not seeing a penny of their rent money, unless you could watching it whizz through your bank account as "seeing" it.

The other big difference is the cost of childcare- if one parent is at home fulltime, you save a packet on childcare.

And you also have time to do slower cooking of cheaper cuts of meat, making stock, etc etc

EllieArroway Fri 19-Jul-13 12:52:32

The other issue is pre-existing debt. I wish there were a central community bank that would buy up existing debt and then just charge a sensible, low %age

That is a really, really good idea. If you're on benefits, there simply isn't enough to pay debts - any debts, so people invariably end up being blacklisted. This is not helpful for when they are back in work and thinking in terms of a mortgage and so on.

Runningchick123 Fri 19-Jul-13 12:57:00

twistyfeet a few years ago hubby and I earned 25k between us and got about 2k in tax credits. We didn't get any housing or concil tax benefits.
Out of that 25k we also had to pay tax, NI, and pension contributions, so we didn't bring home 25k. In one of those years both hubby and I needed dental treatment - both being band C treatments and costing 200 quid ish each. And seeing as one of us needs regular prescriptions we have to pay £104 per year for a prepayment certificate or £7 odd for each item which adds up quickly. School meals at £12 per week for each child......
Travel to work costs are also horrendously expensive, plus the costs of replacing work type clothing on a regular basis. Plus childcare as even those entitled to tax credits have to pay 30% of their childcare costs.
I'm not against people claiming benefits as we need a system that provides for those in need, I'm just annoyed by those that can't see that working doesn't always lead to a much bigger disposable income.

Lazyjaney Fri 19-Jul-13 13:20:57

So long as people who earn less are paying tax to keep non working people on a higher standard of living than they have, the Benefits system will be seen as unfair and will come under pressure.

Is £20k after tax at the crossover where it's better to work? I suspect it's way over the crossover still (maybe excepting London) as that amount pre tax is about the average wage, and people working have all sorts of costs that those not working dont have. So, I'd expect ongoing pressure on benefit levels from taxpayers for quite a while longer.

Someone earlier upthread said we are entitled to a decent standard of living, whether we work or not. It's that entitlement mindset which needs to be eliminated, it's unaffordable and immoral.

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 13:26:41

Sounds alot but that will include child benefit which most working people get on top. Working people als get tax credits. Plus as others have said much of the problem is high rents.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 13:29:15

I can't really answer all the foot stompy points that were thrown at me but stormy the POINT is to try and get the government to helping people in the right way, to assist people to re-train and to work, not for someone else to pay your degree for you, but to offer incentives to study,particularly in those sectors which we are crying out for workers.

If that makes no sense to you i despair, its written quite clearly.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 13:30:21

The main problem seems to be people who don't know much, or indeed anything about how the benefit system works and the cost of living these days. sad
I think you should at least learn about something if you are going to bash or be judgemental.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 13:32:10

I don't think anyone is entitled to a decent standard of living, including myself, unless they are disabled or old or young or something that truly prevents work.

EeTraceyluv Fri 19-Jul-13 13:33:55

I may be being thick here but why do people always say that figure includes rent and council tax benefit ? Well of course it does, our salaries have to pay mortgage and council tax so the resulting figure is going to be the income!

ChestyNut Fri 19-Jul-13 13:43:02

Working should always pay more than unemployment benefits.


Darkesteyes Fri 19-Jul-13 13:43:12

OP you know what i wondered while i was watching this programme.
Whether Debbie who runs the cleaning companys employees have to claim tax credits.
I bet they almost certainly do which would make her a raging great hypocrite. Funny how this was never covered or mentioned in the show.

Lazyjaney Fri 19-Jul-13 13:46:14

The main problem seems to be people who don't know much, or indeed anything about how the benefit system works and the cost of living these days

An "interesting" assumption, that people who work and pay tax and their own accommodation, living and child care costs somehow don't understand the cost of living.

twistyfeet Fri 19-Jul-13 13:49:32

I have no idea what the crossover was but earning 20K (and paying tax) meant be were much better off. Because of the CTC. We got way more back.
I suspect it tails of pretty sharpish as you go up but there's always going to be that middle ground.
I agree that Debbie gets away with paying her employees £7 an hour because they get topped up with CTC etc as with most low paid work. The Carer lady would also be getting CTC as Caring is very low paid but then would local councils be able to fund Carers for disabled people? One way or another its paid for out of taxes, either indirectly via CTC or directly via higher pay for Carers paid for by the councils. (and you can bet the Agency charges the council £15 per hour while the actual worker gets £7)

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 13:55:58

The programme shoul have used a single person with bills to pay. Jsa for a single person is approx £70per week. On top of that she doesn't pay rent. Perhaps 80 pw on her 1 bedroom flat. She now has to pay council tax whilst famalies with young children under 5 don't despite them receiving much larger benefits. (In her area)
This is where the real injustice lies. She worked for 25 years until an outside company csme in and closed the factory down. They just wanted the name.
Her redundancy payout has long since run out and she received no benefits whilst she had that.
As someone who volunterrs in a charity shop for 2 days pw it really hurt when one of those bitches on the programme claimed voluntary work is only valuable if you are in paid work aswell.

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 13:57:45

So we're not entitled to a decent standard of living? A roof over our heads, food to eat, healthcare when we're sick or injured? I believe every person in the world is entitled to that, and we are fortunate enough to live in a country that provides it if we cannot do so for ourselves. By your logic I would be living on the street, and my son with his father. Not a good situation for either of us.

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 13:58:38

O and she has worked intermittently too. Just not much work around for someone with no qualifications/ poss mild learning diffuctiles and no transport.

Darkesteyes Fri 19-Jul-13 14:02:18

I agree Martini If voluntary work is going to be seen as nothing or not valued thats hardly going to encourage more people to do it.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 14:02:43

this So we're not entitled to a decent standard of living? is different than this A roof over our heads, food to eat, healthcare when we're sick or injured?

SoniaGluck Fri 19-Jul-13 14:05:48

I would really like to know the answer to the question put by Darkesteyes about Debbie's employees and whether they get tax credits or not.

I actually think it's important to know that. Because if the tax payer is subsidising Debbie's business then, as Darkesteyes says, she is a hypocrite.

DameDeepRedBetty Fri 19-Jul-13 14:07:30

I can't afford to pay my dogwalking staff more than £8 an hour (part-time). Because our clients won't book our service if it costs any more than it already does. We're already doing some clients at a break-even rate as we know them well enough to know they simply can't afford to pay more and if we don't do it the dogs will suffer. Didn't see the programme some people are talking about, but accusing 'Debbie' of hypocrisy if she's in the same place as me, running a small business in a personal service industry, isn't fair.

mouseymummy Fri 19-Jul-13 14:09:07

I'm currently 26 weeks pg, I have a 9yo and a 10mo.

I have arthritis in both knees and I currently have spd, I am STILL made to apply for at least 5 jobs per day, spend 5hrs job hunting, take my cv to at least 3 different places and apply to 2 agencies PER WEEK. The job centre are well aware im pg, well aware I have spd (2 different letters from consultants are on my file as well as a matb1 form). However, if I miss just one step in the list or cannot make an appt that they set up for me, even if I have an antenatal appt at the hospital, they will stop my money. No questions asked.
I had dd2 via c section, they allowed me to sign on via post for 6 weeks after my due date, I called and explained dd was 12 days late and due to having a c section, I wouldn't be able to make my sign on date. I was sanctioned for a month because of it.

I have no choice but to go sign on. When dh and I applied for jsa, we put me as the main claimant for it, when I got pg, we tried to switch it over but they screwed up and left us with no money until we switched it back.

I want to go to university, however, is need to do an access to higher learning course as I have no a levels. I need to find over £2000 just to cover the cost of the course and the books/bus fare/ etc. We might get jsa for dh but that would be

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 14:10:15

FasterStronger, it's what my benefits allowed me to have. Think of the necessities, food, rent, utilities. Then the stuff we shouldn't need but do - internet and phone. Without them it's insanely hard to get by. Factor in clothes and shoes, again essential, and that would leave me with nothing in my account until the next payday. Heaven forbid an appliance broke down!

grumpyinthemorning Fri 19-Jul-13 14:11:48

Which is the same stuff I had to pay for when I was working, with the same problems. Only difference is I wasn't vilified by society for it back then.

mouseymummy Fri 19-Jul-13 14:19:20

Sorry, pressed post too soon

£140 a week, plus £115 ctc and then £132 4 weekly cb. All to cover the cost if 2 adults and 3 kids. 2 of which will need nappies, formula, clothes, shoes, food for all 5 of us, gas, electric, water, tv license, internet (you HAVE to have internet now, to effectively email your diary for what you've done that day to your advisor) plus bus fare for dh, money for dd1 to get to school and back and anything else I may have forgotten.

It's not something I choose, I worked up until I got made redundant at the start of 2012. Finding someone to hire you when you are classed as disabled is hard enough but the job centre honestly expect me to find somewhere to hire me when I'm 26 wks pg and have spd. Id love to know where im meant to find this amazing job!

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 14:23:07

Why didn't you train at uni before getting pregnant?

Childcare is going to be tricky for two under school age while you go to uni

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 14:23:12

O and even well off people can be one step away from disaster. My dh is a hrt payer who earns enough for us not to even receive child benefit. He ckuld lose his job tomorrow and we would be up the creek with 3 dc to support. His boss just has.

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 14:24:55

O and even well off people can be one step away from disaster. My dh is a hrt payer who earns enough for us not to even receive child benefit. He ckuld lose his job tomorrow and we would be up the creek with 3 dc to support. His boss just has.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 19-Jul-13 14:25:31

Mousey, you say that as if there's something wrong with it?

Should they just hand over money for no reason because you went and got pregnant when neither you or your DH have a job and you have a ten month old baby already?

I hope your husband is being expected to do the same.

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 14:27:23

Sounds hard mousey money but chb will be 188 when little one arrives. Small comfort I know.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 14:30:16

And if its not enough, you could have another one, then another..

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 14:30:28

exactly Martini - I had 3 children and happy marriage and between us we earned a lot - although most of my wages paid for childcare

Then my husband left me while I was on maternity leave and 12 month later his business went under

without CTC paying for childcare I would be forced to give up work, my home

or my friend who was married and had 2 kids until her other half died of cancer and she became dadada.... a lone parent on benefits

be very careful what you say about people that might one day, through no fault of your own, be you

expatinscotland Fri 19-Jul-13 14:36:11

Mousy, I think the welfare system is a good thing, but c'mon.

Darkesteyes Fri 19-Jul-13 14:36:43

I wonder how/if Luther was covered by insurance being as how he was signed off work ill but was doing trial shifts in the warehouse and in the lorry with the driver.
Would he have been covered by Employers Liability Insurance.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 14:44:16

Surely though, all the people who say all their wages go on childcare that is totally their own choice and imo not the fault of people receiving benefit. If they were to become a sahp they wouldn't have these costs. fair enough if you have to work to pay bills and to live.

Also there are parents who don't work and their dp earns a low wage. The dp receives tax credit as low income, you can't then say that the non working is being paid to be a sahp as they clearly aren't.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 14:44:26

It's got to be about good insurance guys, my husband is South African and is amazed by this culture of 'no insurance the gov will support me if I loose my job

sonlypuppyfat Fri 19-Jul-13 14:48:44

Its more than enough I know loads of people on benefits they have been on them for years they manage to fire tons of kids out that they supposidly can't afford to keep.

Lazyjaney Fri 19-Jul-13 14:50:02

be very careful what you say about people that might one day, through no fault of your own, be you

No one is arguing for no benefits system, they are arguing for one that does not give more money than c 50% of the working population earn.

And Mouseymoney, getting pg again with 2 kids already supported by the taxpayers tab and then expecting to do nothing for (even more of) it is precisely the sort of choice that is unavailable to the people paying for you, and that is what is making most people believe the current system is badly broken and needs reform.

Pipparivers Fri 19-Jul-13 14:54:54

It a ridiculous amount of money!!

I am a lone parent with a 5yr old and 1yr old triplets. We get by on just £5,000 a yr in central London.

We mend and make do.
It's all about meal planning.
Shop in the discount aisle.
I make all 'diary' products using bm it makes a lovely cheese.
We sleep under the stars. It's great for the children to get so much fresh air.

We live in such a materialistic society these days. Nobody needs £20k a yr.

Technotropic Fri 19-Jul-13 14:55:48


I was watching that programme and £20k is loads. In fact you don't even need to watch a TV programme to realise £20k is loads.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 15:01:56


I am in awe, as I totally agree with you, but never quite made it to sleeping under the stars. grin So unfortunately we do need a bit more than 5k, but totally see where you are coming from.

Indecisive90 Fri 19-Jul-13 15:07:04

I'm not going to get drawn into casting judgement on people on benefits but I do think 20k is a lot of money. I don't know the circumstances you'd have to be in to get that though, I assume that's a maximum? Benefits should be a temporary solution though. It is a fact that some people work the system and never work.

The attitude that 'we are all entitled to a decent standard of living' is a problem. We live in a developed country so should all be entitled to a basic standard of living. There's a big difference. Internet, Sky TV, children with their own bedrooms, should be considered luxuries. Food and shelter is basic.

And filee, your ignorance of graduate jobs is astounding. Brits don't want to train? Just ridiculous. I think you'll find that Medicine is ridiculously competitive, all the places available at uni are filled every year so as many people as possible are training in it. There aren't the same number of jobs available for trained people, if everyone was highly trained and qualified we'd be in the exact same situation. We are in that situation to an extent, lots go to uni and come out qualified for jobs that don't exist. I studied pharmacy, you'd think that's a sensible option, and there were plenty of jobs when I chose it. That was 6 years ago. Now I'm just about to qualify and we're all really struggling to find employment. Chances are I'll be on JSA in a month. It's getting to a similar situation with doctors, there aren't enough foundation training places for all the med students.

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 15:10:42

But what does the 5k include pippa. No way could you pay rent mortgage bills nappies food etc on 5k. Especially in london. Plus why don, t you get more. Ie chb tax credits etc.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 15:11:34

mousey I'm sorry but it IS something you chose. No, you didn't choose to be made redundant at the start of 2012. But you DID choose to get pregnant 26 weeks ago when you had been redundant for the best part of 12 months and are therefore expecting taxpayers not only to part fund the two kids you already had (while you were working) but for another one.

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 15:11:45

Sorry missed the sleeup under the stars bit.

mouseymummy Fri 19-Jul-13 15:19:36

I didn't get pg by choice and I did seriously consider abortion, but for reasons I don't really want to go into, I didn't.

I've worked since I left school, I'm not saying it excuses my situation but I'm hoping once baby is here and I am over the spd etc, I can find another job but tbh, its not looking hopeful right now. Not with my lack of qualifications.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 15:28:00


How do you know mousey expects taxpayers to fund her dc, and shouldn't mousey and family be supported.
I bet you would be pleased of the help if you were entitled to it, I also bet you would take it too.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 15:31:07

morethan - of course everyone would take it, and be glad for it (not that mousy seems glad, she is complaining actually) Nobody is criticising benefit claimants, only the shitty system that allows her to have a 3rd child when plenty of taxpayers cant afford it.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 15:48:40

morethan - let's be honest here, all taxpayers part fund everyone's DC, which is why I chose the word part fund. I have no children. I won't be having any. But my taxes still pay for schools etc that all children benefit from. Which is fair enough, as hopefully one day some of those children will work in the NHS which I also pay for and although, as yet, I've hardly used, will probably have to at some point. I earn what I earn and the only support I get is 25% of the council tax as a single person. I pay more council tax than, say, three people in a house share, so I pay my fair share but get no other benefits.

But if you already have 2 children, have been out of work for over a year and choose to have another child, then yes, I think having another child is irresponsible because. In mousey's case, she says it was not by choice and she didn't want to have an abortion. However, there are people who would just have had another baby regardless because they are used to state handouts. I do wonder how mousey will fund her training and look after 3 children.

Am sorry to sound so judgemental and harsh, I think it's the heat!

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 16:01:49


I'm sorry but I don't see that mousey has done anything wrong at all.
My dh has always worked and I haven't, because the tax credits he is entitled to have enabled me to be a sahm. I could have worked but I chose not to.
The tax credits would have stopped this year as ds2 has just left ft education. However, I fell pregnant with dd she is 9 now and the tax credit continues. We didn't plan this to get more money, I was on an early change. The thought that life is so sterile as people planning dc to me is ridiculous. My parents generation had a saying. "If you waited until you could afford dc before having them, you'd never have any". I can sort of agree with this and think too many people use it as an excuse to benefit bash tbh.
Babies hardly cost anything and come complete with free childcare.

Mumoftwoyoungkids Fri 19-Jul-13 16:10:57

Don't know enough about benefits to comment (although I do think the rumour I have heard that benefits staff have targets for sanctions is pretty awful) but I think decisions need to be made about degree courses available.

For subjects such as media where there are currently a lot more well qualified candidates than jobs available there should be a reduction in the number of university places available so that (allowing for people failing, dropping out, changing their minds etc) the number of new graduates each year roughly matches the number of jobs available.

If you are going to discover you can't do the job of your dreams you should make that discovery at 18 not after 4 years work and £50k of debt.

littlemisssarcastic Fri 19-Jul-13 16:14:14

I think in some cases, benefits are more than enough to live a decent life.
I am working in a low paid job, yet all of the benefits I receive combined total more than £27K per year.
I have 1 DD btw and I receive more than enough for DD and I.
I'm not complaining at all and not everyone on benefits is poor.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 16:14:42

"Babies hardly cost anything and come complete with free childcare"

That is so incorrect I don't know where to start! Even if you breastfed and used newspaper for nappies the babies will grow into children, and then adults.

In mouseys case she will need childcare for 2 children to enable her to even get on an access to uni course... what free childcare?

MrsDeVere Fri 19-Jul-13 16:19:35

filee I have National Insurance and have been paying it for decades.

Lots of people will never be able to afford extra insurance on top of that.
We couldn't get insured anyway. No one would insure my OH.

The absolute crap trotted out on this thread is appalling.

As usual people moan about their taxes blah blah fucking blah.

Well as a tax payer of many years standing why is it my opinions about where my taxes go are less valid? Because they are not me, me , me?

I want my taxes to go to those who need them. I am happy for that to happen. To support mousey and gordy and even the vulnerable who are not very nice.

Because I want to live in a civilized society where its not about the survival of the fittest and the greediest and the most selfish.

On these threads the people with the greatest sense of entitlement, the ones wanting more are always the ones who have the most.

I never see people on benefits moaning and saying they don't get enough. they might describe how hard it is but they don't demand more.

That is usually down to the comfortable ones who resent anyone getting something they don't.

Along with convoluted maths 'proving' that some LP living in a crappy flat with three kids is 'actually better of than me in real terms'

Utter bollocks

KatoPotato Fri 19-Jul-13 16:22:59

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

Beastofburden Fri 19-Jul-13 16:24:59

hello to mouseymummy. I work at a University, so am interested that you see going to Uni as the solution to your problems. You may well be right, but I hope you have had some good advice on what Uni to go to and what course to pick? This access the HE course might be great or a total rip off. Do you mind sharing the kind of subject area you might study at Uni and what kind of job you are aiming for?

It's just that hearing your story, I found myself thinking that the Open University might suit you really well and be cheaper. You dont need any A levels for that.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 19-Jul-13 16:28:58

^I'm sorry but I don't see that mousey has done anything wrong at all.
My dh has always worked and I haven't, because the tax credits he is entitled to have enabled me to be a sahm. I could have worked but I chose not to. ^

Your really don't see anything wrong with that?

It's absolutely crazy that we have people that can say things like this with no shame at all.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 16:30:24


A parent is free childcare, surely.
My babies didn't cost much at all and cb paid for nappies etc, we all had this. i'm sorry but you didn't see the rich giving it back. There is only who ha about it now because the rich have lost it.
The same with tax credits, they have only been a big deal since the gov decided to lump them in with benefit. Nobody mentioned them nor complained about them before gov and media conquer and divide.

umpti67 Fri 19-Jul-13 16:31:57

I think if you live in a low rent property perhaps. For us, it would just to say cover rent and bills leaving very little for food. We wouldn't be able to pay for any insurances, cars, clothes, shoes. So no it wouldn't be much here when rent for a 2 bed property is £1k pcm and council tax is £170 pcm. If rent were £500 it would be dramatically different. Families round here on benefits live in one bed flats unless they're lucky enough to get housing association properties. I wouldn't call that a good life.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 16:34:16


Why should I be ashamed, if I had made the choice to work it would have been disastrous for my family. I would have needed childcare for 2 dc and would have been working for minus money.
When the oldest was little there was no childcare and we had no family within a 250 mile radius so then it wasn't a choice. When child care provision became widespread there wasn't a need for me to work.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 16:39:14

^I'm sorry but I don't see that mousey has done anything wrong at all.
My dh has always worked and I haven't, because the tax credits he is entitled to have enabled me to be a sahm. I could have worked but I chose not to. ^

on the up side this is changing and I imagine that by the time of the next boom, it will be hard for anyone who needs state support to choose not to work FT.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 16:46:45

Faster grin

Where are the jobs going to come from?
Who with any intelligence at all will work, when childcare equates to or exceeds what they are earning? Irrespective of benefit or TCs


Do you not believe that people deserve an education? You know very little of mousys situation and yet you judge.

awaywego1 Fri 19-Jul-13 16:48:35

Maybe there's the odd person who gets that much-some of which will depend on where they live etc however 90% of folk in benefits struggle, really struggle-many are living on one meal a day, waiting for a knock on the door from the bloody doorstep lender that they had to use when they were desperate, constantly being 'sanctioned' by dwp, having benefits chopped and changed, having to fill in paperwork and work through a system that requires a fairy high degree of capability to manage that many people can't cope with it.
Yes we should have a discussion about benefits, but look at the bigger picture, for most the benefits system is a hugely inadequate and shaming experience rather than one that allows people to live in the lap of luxury.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 16:49:06

The personal attacks on Mousey on this thread are out of order.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 16:50:30

morethan - I said 'by the time of the next boom...'

the economy is picking up.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 16:53:00

morethan - Of course everyone deserves an education. Mousy had hers, now she is supposed to be a contributing member of society.

Mousy is complaining that her benefits which support 2 adults and 3 children are time consuming to claim.

You don't think there are lots of people in low paid jobs who would love to start all over from GCSEs and get their dream job?

Funding mousy to live the dream is NOT the point of the welfare system

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 16:57:11

morethan - "the thought that life is so sterile as people planning dc to me is ridiculous".

I'm sorry, but YES, people SHOULD plan their DCs. Why should those people who can't or don't want children pay for you to keep popping out as many kids as you want regardless of whether you can afford them? I don't mind paying my bit, but there is a limit. We are a species capable of rational thought.

The world population was 2 billion in 1927. In 1960 it as 3 billion. In 2012 it reached 7 billion. In other words it more than doubled in the last 52 years. We can't keep doing that. Look at the state of the world in terms of pollution, the species we are killing off etc. All because man thinks it can just keep on popping out as many as they want. Millions of people starving, children being born literally to die, and you think people should just do what they want and not plan to have children?

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 17:00:46

its important that people do have more than one chance at education. but it needs to be done in a cost efficient manner which means not when childcare is required - because someone can continue their education when their dcs are a school.

IMO if you have children, you should do everything you can to provide for them. and being a student is not doing that.

we also need to be careful about encouraging people to do degrees when there many not be the right job for them at the end to merit both their personal sacrifices and cost to the nation.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:02:22

How do you know mousy had an education. My own education didn't start until I was in my 30's.
Some benefits aren't only time consuming but so difficult for vulnerable people to claim, have you filled many forms in?
I haven't but have seen many.
I was funded in education for several years, I had a grant and fees paid up to and including undergrad level, then a 6k bursary and fees paid for PgCE.
many thanks to Tony Blair.
Mousy isn't out of order, it was provided for at one time.
People have to remember that society and gov changes.
It isn't so long ago that if you were a working mum you were a bad parent, even when my oldest was a baby 22 years ago, many I knew sneered at working mums.
When it comes round again, working mums or at least both parents working will find the need to justify their choices, and so it continues.

EllieArroway Fri 19-Jul-13 17:05:01

My own education didn't start until I was in my 30's

You didn't go to school?

Dahlen Fri 19-Jul-13 17:05:08

I don't understand the outrage behind tax credits enabling SAHPs to be SAHPs. Fact is that children require care. If the SAHP becomes a WOHP instead then he/she will end up paying for childcare. If they're in the pay bracket where they would have qualified for tax credits to enable being a SAHP, they would probably get more money in the childcare element of WTC to help pay for childcare. So we're basically paying the parents to pay for someone else to look after their children. Now that IS bonkers!

burberryqueen Fri 19-Jul-13 17:06:04

if mousy is improving her qualifications and job chances surely that could only be a good thing?

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 17:07:00

I think maybe people complaing about peope popping out children should bear in mind that they are the taxpayers of the future. Thus these children will be putting into the pot that your pension comes out of. Although I suspect they may argue that they won' t work either.
Also others who say I don't claim benefits maaybe should consider whether they have ever claimed child benefit, tax credits or maternity allowance smp.
Mousey situation is temporary. She wants to work and has worked previously. Give her a break.
Even hrt payers used to be able to get chb and tax credits..

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:07:04


So, what do you propose to people like myself and mousy who didn't plan their last child.
I didn't want such a huge gap between my dc and certainly hadn't planned dd. I can't think of life without her and feel sick that somebody would think that because my dh is a low wage earner we shouldn't have kept her.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 17:07:05

its not going to go back to women/parents should stay at home. as the world population grows and standards of living equalise globally, everything will get more expensive.

EllieArroway Fri 19-Jul-13 17:09:31

Surely to goodness we have not all become so PC that we can't point out that getting pregnant while already on benefits is really, really not on?

I am a massive supporter of the welfare state - I think (along with the NHS) it's one of our finest achievements in this country. And I love that we care enough about each other to ensure that those who need help get it.

Most people who claim do so because they have no choice and I don't begrudge them a single penny. But come on, there HAS to be some personal responsibility here. Two parents who are out of work should not be having more children. Sorry.

And there are plenty of jobs around where you don't need qualifications other than basic numeracy and literacy.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:10:57


Unfortunately, it is the greedy entitled taxpayers who are begrudging others, less well off than themselves because they no longer can claim benefits. These to me are the most entitled as they didn't even need their benefit

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 17:12:25

martini - I have already said, I have never claimed any tax credits, my only 'benefit' as a single person is a 25% discount on council tax. And I have also already said that I don't object to my taxes doing on schools etc because of 'forward planning'.

morethan - I also already said that I appreciated mousy didn't plan their third child. But there are people out there who are in a position like hers and CHOOSE to get pregnant. I am not suggesting everyone goes out and gets abortions!

But, I am an only child. I asked my mum once why. Her answer was very simple: "We could only just afford you. We couldn't afford any more children, so we didn't have any". I don't actually see what's wrong with that. I think that is a responsible attitude.

twistyfeet Fri 19-Jul-13 17:13:55

You sleep under the stars Pippa? In central London? hmm

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 17:14:46

^ I can't think of life without her and feel sick that somebody would think that because my dh is a low wage earner we shouldn't have kept her.^

I have many talented friends who will not get to have even one child because they have never met the right person in their fertile years. someone having to limit their family to 2 is really not a big deal.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:15:21


How do you know, have you a crystal ball. I'm sure those mums 20+ years ago who looked down on working mums never thought for one minute they would be judged many years later.
What goes round, comes round.
If it ever happens that one wage is able to sustain the support of a family, then we could quite easily get back to "bad working mums" who don't need to now.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 17:17:52

what you can 'afford' changes though - I had 3 planned children with my husband ...who left ...and suddenly, in order to keep working, as I had for 23 years, I needed CTC - lives change - it's very simplistic to say you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them, I could

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:18:23

Faster, accidents happen. If you read neither my nor mousys last child was planned.
But people would rather think they were conceived to earn money, this is disgusting and the alternative of not continuing with a pregnancy because you are on benefits is even more disgusting.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 17:18:51

morethan - are you genuinely of the belief that everyone should just have as many children as they like, even if they themselves can't afford it?

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 17:19:30

Wasn't aimed directly at you jessica. Was more a general observation from the other tbread and various facebook comments which has in recent times appeared on my wall.
Obv do appreciate a childless person puts in more to the system than they will get out. My brother is on a good salarywith no dependents but he has never complained. Yet I have seen people on fb who have only just started working full time 8 years after having dc complaining that she is going out to work to pay for these people to have dc. Of course she receives chb, wtc. Tax credits etc.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 17:20:42

gordy - there is the world of difference, and you know it, between a change in circumstances when you already have children, and choosing (I am discounting 'accidents') to have children when you are out of work and living on benefits.

morethan - you are deliberately choosing to disregard what we have said as regards 'unplanned' and 'planned' children while on benefits.

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 17:22:00

more than - yes I have a crystal ball.

RonaldMcDonald Fri 19-Jul-13 17:23:03

I am utterly bored by people who don't consider their tax credits, working and child, to be benefits.

I find that those in receipt of tax credits are some of the fastest to look down on others 'on benefits'

The reason I posted earlier suggesting ending tax credits was to rattle the cages of those who are happy to have a cap set on out of work benefits but not reduce the massive tax credit bill.

No one, except the truly working poor, should receive tax credits
Everyone else needs to accept the size of their pot
Single parents should receive childcare vouchers to remove the burden of childcare from them if they so wish and are able to work

Any couple earning more than £25k should not receive tax credits

FasterStronger Fri 19-Jul-13 17:24:27

more than - many things happens and as adults we need to take responsibility for them. if the govt has money to help people have children, I would rather it was spread amongst more people than given to those with 2 dcs already.

Lazyjaney Fri 19-Jul-13 17:24:38

I think maybe people complaing about peope popping out children should bear in mind that they are the taxpayers of the future

It's the popping out of children while on benefits that people are complaining about, as (i) it's not an option for many of those taxpayers who have to pay for said kids and (ii) the much higher likelihood that those kids won't work either.

So, what do you propose to people like myself and mousy who didn't plan their last child

What frustrated taxpayers are in essence proposing are that they don't want to pay for these kids, as they suspect your decisions would have then been different and more like what they have to do, ie p,an their families responsibly.

antimatter Fri 19-Jul-13 17:28:20

FYI just to give salaries as a context - my friend with 2 kids 17 and 14 yo, both parents working - earning one 18 the other 19K aren't entitled to any benefits
she works a p/t, he works f/t

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:33:54


I am not disregarding what you have said but struggle to see the difference in terms of claiming benefit. Either planned or unplanned pregnancy results in the same result for those on benefits.
Granted you have said that you realise mousy didn't plan the last pregnancy, which I didn't see and misinterpreted your post, for which I am guilty, sorry.
I am a little defensive on this topic as see no mileage in it at all.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 17:35:27

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

RonaldMcDonald Fri 19-Jul-13 17:35:59

so your friends earn 37k and one is a pt worker

why on earth would they receive benefits or tax credits?

do they get child benefit?

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 17:37:54

morethan - are you genuinely of the belief that everyone should just have as many children as they like, even if they themselves can't afford it?

Sorry to ask again, but your earlier postings basically suggest no one should undertake any family planning.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:39:20


If you believe your last comment then you are a cheeky cow. Both my ds 21 nearly 22 and 18 year old work. Ds1 has 4 pt jobs because they aren't secure so as he is being made redundant he has something else. My dc and dh have a great work ethic thank you.
There is no evidence that benefit claimants dc don't work in the future, except for a minority. But hey, don't let that get in the way of the truth.
Some dc appreciate the fact that both of their parents haven't put money and work before them, even if it has made them reliant upon a top up benefit.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 19-Jul-13 17:39:58

Goodtouch..that post is so out of order.

I mean who on earth do you think you are?

And DH and I both work before you make digs at ME.

Alisvolatpropiis Fri 19-Jul-13 17:40:45

Well in flat out monetary terms - 20k is a lot.

But when you consider rent,food,clothes and general bills it works out at significantly less.

The benefits system doesn't function correctly but I would prefer it to stay the way it is than society revert back to to what it was pre WWII. People living in slums,families living in one room etc. Truly awful living conditions and a genuine "well I'm alright jack" attitude from everybody who wasn't affected.

Yes some people might be too lazy to work. Should their children suffer for it though?

Should people who genuinely can't work have to see their children suffer for it?


GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 17:43:28

Come off it Fanjo... you don't think it makes a difference?

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:44:40

Yes, I do think people should have as many dc as they want if they are willing to raise them themselves and not expect taxpayers to fund child care for them.
It does work both ways. You can't expect subsidised childcare for a lifestyle choice and then begrudge those not earning enough, or redundant support raising their own children.
You are no better than anybody else just because you have a job. That could all go tomorrow and you'd expect the taxpayer to help you.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Fri 19-Jul-13 17:47:30

So the Govt should cease providing those free hours of nursery care then for children of a certain age? Coz I think us taxpayers are paying for that....

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 19-Jul-13 17:47:53

Ellie, i think personal responsibility went out of the window a long time ago for many. So many have children without the means to support them, its actively encourages on here with comments of babies dont cost much or tax credits can be claimed.

I love how rent is deducted from benefits so make the figures low, so people who work and self suppport should start stating their salary after rent now then too should they.

£20k is an enourmous amount of money for not working or contributing, no wonder so many changes are being made to the system. UC will require both parents to work so the end of state money allowing people to choose not to work wll eventually come to an end. Well, until a loophole is found

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:53:47

Of course not.
However, all the comments of taxpayers subsidising the children of benefit claimants, there are working parents subsidising others childcare, who never use childcare.
My point is, we could go on forever about who should and should not be entitled to support.
IMO, working parents should not be more entitled to support than non working parents. My dh works and we don't use childcare, never have. His tax goes to pay for subsidised childcare, so does my dc1, who doesn't have dc. We could all come the high and mighty, it doesn't bloody matter.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 17:54:24

Happy many if not the majority of HB claimants are in work - on low wages - it's not just paid to those out of work

LessMissAbs Fri 19-Jul-13 17:55:17

Yes, but if an employed person didn't have to deduct their rent and Council Tax from their salary, they would be a lot better off too!

What shocked me from the programme last night was the lack of commitment of that young man who phoned up to say he wasn't going to bother going into work again.

Staying at home and not working should be a luxury if you can afford it. Its not fair to expect other people to work to fund your lifestyle choices. And then to complain when they object to it. I don't mind supporting those genuinely in need, but I do object to funding people who could work but like the luxury of not bothering, until maybe it suits them for a bit.

I was criticised on the thread asking how people can afford to live, because I blundered in without reading it all and simply pointed out that I would tend to go out to work if I didn't have enough money to live on. The OP there is 18 and wants to be a SAHM until her child is 4, and then become a student. And the insinuation on that thread is that I am in some way akin to Satan for daring to point out that this lifestyle choice just might be linked to her limited spending power.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 17:58:12

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

from here

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 17:59:18


As I said up thread, babies don't cost much. The cb pays for milk/nappies and shoes when they are older. This isn't something new. In fact all you rich parents were real scroungers with the cb shock, you didn't need it.
Childcare is expensive but nothing really to do with having kids as parents are free childcare.

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 18:01:05

Nobody can bring up a baby on the CB alone.

Parents are only free childcare if they don't WORK!

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 18:05:47


Yes, I have always had free childcare and not expected taxpayers to subsidise childcare costs because I can't be arsed to raise my own dc, or stupid enough to think losing a full wage from the family income is worth it grin

GoodTouchBadTouch Fri 19-Jul-13 18:09:46

Don't get me wrong, it would be silly for you to go out to work, unless you can make a fortune. But your husband works FT. I haven't worked since my 1st was born.

Its not the same as having no way of providing for your existing children, but going on to have more anyway

hm32 Fri 19-Jul-13 18:17:16

Just a thought here - we could live (incl paying mortgage, council tax) on £18000 a year (DH's wage), and still have some quality of life. We're a family with one child.

If we want more than one, that wouldn't really be enough. Now I would like two, but even though I'm in a professional job, childcare would be £200 per month more than my wage if I put two children in nursery. So we'd be worse off as a family until at least one child went to school.

So as a working family, having a child COSTS us money, ESPECIALLY if we both work. We have to choose carefully whether we can afford that, as we cannot simply work more to earn the extra due to the extortionate cost of childcare.

I have seen families living on benefits and how little spare cash there is. It's not a nice life. It's no better if you work minimum wage jobs though. And if you don't turn up at work for a day because your child is in hospital, you won't get paid in ANY job. If your child is in hospital for a few weeks, you won't get paid for those weeks. Sick pay is pretty rubbish too.

I would never begrudge others enough money on which to live. The greatest expenditure any government makes is health, education and pensions anyway, something all of us get. I don't understand why everyone seems not to get that there are WORKING parents who cannot afford a bed for their children, who cannot afford dinner for the adults, who cannot have an extra child because it won't work financially. It is those parents that are thinking 'hey, wait a minute, she gets to have six kids and manage to feed/clothe/house them on her benefits.' 'I couldn't do that on my salary...'

So did mousy live under a rock and not attend school and receive the free education we are entitled to?

And no, why should we pay to educate her further, IMO her lack of qualifications shows neither great academic ability or the ability to stick at something and gain a qualification. If she didn't take advantage of the free education first time round then sorry but she needs to fund herself.

And I do firmly believe that people would be more careful in terms of birth control and planning the size of their family if they had to stretch what benefits they were already receiving.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 18:20:52

Moretahn if parents should 'raise their own children' and 'lose a full wage' can you tell me what I, a working single parent who needs CTC to pay childcare should do? I am very confused - If I don't work I am on benefits but if I do I am not raising my children and sponging off the tax payer?

I realise you meant to be goady but I am genuinely curious

Whothefuckfarted Fri 19-Jul-13 18:21:31

People who are out of work get the absolute minimum amount they and their family need to live on as determined by the government. It's not a bed of roses. It's enough to just about scrape by.

If you work and receive less than someone on benefits in the exact same position you are in (housing/children etc) then instead of bashing the people on benefits, you should be campaigning for higher wages in this country. A LIVING wage.

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 19-Jul-13 18:27:50

Morethan, i doubt your DH's tax pays for other peoples childcare given you have a few children, claim CB, WTC and CTC. I suspect you net more in benefits a month than you pay in tax as WTC is capped to low salaries.

Plus you may have lost your salary but you then claimed tax credits so obviously the loss in salary wasnt a selfless decision as you knew it would be topped up anyway by other tax payers.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 18:31:39

Lol at whothefuck

The bare minimum? Bollocks is it, free meal at school every day, 70 to 80 a week per child is far and above the minimum

The simple reality is that once you are on your third child you are receiving more in benefits than the cut off for in work benefits.

It's a bloody sham it really is.

StormyBrid Fri 19-Jul-13 18:33:32

I don't think morethan is trying to say we should all be having endless babies on benefits. It takes the piss a bit, though it's perfectly legal. The problem is, no one has yet suggested a realistic and workable solution that doesn't result in some children suffering through poverty. If a set amount isn't paid for each child, some will suffer for it, through no fault of their own. Personally I'd say it's worth funding a small number of people who play the system if it means less children going hungry.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 18:34:51


Your point? I'm sure he doesn't pay for anybodies childcare, but obviously many taxpayers do.
Surely, if we live in a society that is suggesting we don't have dc unless we can afford them, that should apply to everybody, not just those on low incomes or out of work.
If my dh earned enough we wouldn't need tcs, if many duel income parents earned enough they could pay their own childcare. If all the unemployed had jobs they wouldn't need jsa.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 18:40:06


I have 3 dc born 1991, 1994, and 2004.

Ds1 and 2 were born before I started claiming Family credit during 1995. We received a letter telling us it was our money with our name on it.
How on earth I knew that Tcs would come in is beyond me grin

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 18:40:58

dunno where the about came from Happy grin

handcream Fri 19-Jul-13 18:42:21

Sorry, £20k not bad for a single person i.e a single person at home without a job. No, its not bad. £20k for doing nothing....

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 18:46:28


I don't think people should lose a wage, but those who do should not be treated like the anti social scum, they are portrayed to be. i don't think that a person working and receiving supplemented childcare is any better than a low income family with a sahp receiving tax credit.
Until a living wage is available it will be the same problem. The gov just want to divide and conquer.

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 19-Jul-13 18:48:37

Morethan, given you saved your tax credits to buy a house then it would appear your DH's income was more than enough anyway. If it isnt, theres always the novel suggestion of working.

Abolishing all child related benefits would put a stop to people having children that they cannot afford, am sure contraception would be used far better and people would sit down and ensure they could financially support a child. Statistics show that children fare better not growing up on benefits so outcomes would rise too. I dont think its too much to ask that people provide for the children they choose to have.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 18:51:38

I get you Morethan and I agree x

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 18:53:04

where do you draw the line then HappyMummyOfOne (you dont sound happy tbh) education, healthcare...

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 19-Jul-13 18:55:40

Theres a huge difference to a SAHP claiming benefits and a working parent childcare assistance. The latter is working, therefore paying tax and after a few years will cease to need childcare but will still have a job. It also means the chance of promotion or a rise. A SAHP is not contributing and has no recent work experience once the child benefits stop or their partner leaves etc so work would be very hard to come by.

I also think its good for chilldren to see both parents financially contributing, girls need to know they they can self support and boys shouldnt believe that just because they are male it means they are expected to work all hours so that their wife doesnt have too.

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 18:56:35

My suggestion would be prove your on long term contraception before receiving benefits, via doctors note, or at least after the second child you are claiming for.

Of course they won't do that because its against human rights, so they will just cut benefits to children and carry on allowing people to breed endlessly in 1 bed flats because that's not against human rights at all.

Controversial but would work....

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 19-Jul-13 18:58:13

Gordy, education and healthcare are different.

I'm very happy thanks, just because i disagree with taxes paying for people to choose not to work or have as many children as they like doesnt make me miserable. Benefits should be there for those truly unable to work, not for lifestyle choices.

JakeBullet Fri 19-Jul-13 19:02:48

No tax credit
No child benefit

Is that all the child related benefits out there? Not sure.

That would reduce my income by nearly £500 a month (I get higher tax credits as DS is disabled).

What is that income replaced with though? Please don't say "work" because currently my son's needs mean I can't work. It won't be forever but currently it isn't possible. I DO manage to give three hours of voluntary work a week though which involves supporting families who need support. It might lead to paid employment in the future I hope.

So no child related benefits would mean I could not actually feed us...or perhaps I could but not heat my home (not required at the mogrin) or pay for water.

When you stop all child related benefits them you harm the most vulnerable people in society.

handcream Fri 19-Jul-13 19:04:27

Why do you think HappyMummyof One is 'not happy'. Just because she is questioning why women have children they can clearly not afford or deciding to have another child without any visible means of support. It is irresponsible.

Bringing up kids in a household single or not where no one works sends out a message to the children and not particularly a good one. It is known that very young women having babies with errant fathers tend to encourage their children to do the same.

handcream Fri 19-Jul-13 19:06:23

There are also some scare mongers on benefits on various threads saying that if their benefits are reduced they will not be able to feed them -really.....

Whothefuckfarted Fri 19-Jul-13 19:06:54

Lol all you want filee it's true. Your brain washed. Well done.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 19:07:56 you must have missed this link Happy - only 8% of 'people on benefits' have more than 2 kids

no she seems quiet cross that's all grin

I work with those 'young women' btw - and it's way more complex than that - still lets blame them and not the 'young men' who I suspect where also involved

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 19:08:09

You've just got to look at food differently I'm afraid, less meat n more lentils, seasonal fruits and veggies, jams and pickles for winter, the way people lived for hundreds of years.

JakeBullet Fri 19-Jul-13 19:08:50

My auntie who lived in Switzerland nearly all her life couldn't believe how much parents were given in benefits here. In Switzerland a baby is seen as "a family issue" and no benefits are paid. Nurseries are well run and a Mum is expected to find work very quickly (within a year I think). However, child care is supported etc.
Work is very well paid out there though, all my cousins live very well on their salaries. They don't actually NEED any support because wages are higher....and this in a country known to be expensive.

If we paid a proper wage in this country then our benefits bill would drop rapidly.

gordyslovesheep Fri 19-Jul-13 19:09:58

when I read threads like this I find myself really hoping that those who buy into the anti human beings claiming benefits they are legally entitled to brigade never have to find out the hard way what it's like

it happend to a DM reading friend of mine - she was stunned to find out how little she got when she had to sign on

filee777 Fri 19-Jul-13 19:10:02

It's not just 'people on benefits' that are the issue, it's people on long term top ups too.

Whothefuckfarted Fri 19-Jul-13 19:13:17

you're! lol

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 19:16:02


I didn't quite make the sleeping under the stars as the poster up thread but as I have said many times the tcs could have gone to replace broken metal window frames, a decent reliable car (not a new one) a car for me, central heating. All the things you need living in the countryside. We could have paid tradesmen to make our home inhabitable, but we saved the money, did without or did it ourselves. So yes, we did need the money just the same as anybody on a low income does.

handcream Fri 19-Jul-13 19:18:21

A proper wage for what Jake? We all have choices, some choose to have their children very early in life with no means of support or with a errant man. Some choose to do 9-5 and no more, some choose to stay in the middle of no where and claim there are no jobs, some say they cannot drive, some say they have a poor choice in men meaning they are left to look after the babies. Some mess around at school, some are genuinley sick and need support.

I dont want a minimum wage. I chose to have my children late in life. I choose to work FT. You seem to indicate that people dont have choices to make. They do. Often they choose poorly or just dont want to do the roles that demanding the extended hours. Maybe they have elderly parents? Well we all have that issue.

If I was offered for example a minimum wage, zero hours contract I would look at what I can do to increase my choices. Not come bleating on about how unfair life is on a minimum wage. If you dont like it look to do something about it.....

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 19:20:50


I forgot to ask.

Do you think all parents should work then, even if what they will bring home is less than what they would pay in child care?

handcream Fri 19-Jul-13 19:24:44

And that's the issue More Than. Work should always pay. There are people caught in a trap where they are only able to apply for minimum wage roles (for all sorts of reasons) and who then find that benefits pay MORE. Completely crazy

MrsSparkles Fri 19-Jul-13 19:24:50

Jake in principal I agree - it should be a combination of higher wages and lower benefits.

However I'm a business owner - I employ around 60 people - if the minimum wage went up say £2 per hour I would probably need to lay off 10-ish people. Just to note I currently take less out of the business than my senior staff earn in wages.

I think it should never pay more to be on benefits than in a minimum wage job, and people should never have the chance to get into the dependency cycle that we do currently have.

I used to live in central London, and I got so cross whilst on maternity leave watching all the people living in this prime location and not working, when (for example) when I gave birth, my midwife had to travel from an hour and half away because she couldn't afford to live closer - wrong on so many levels.

handcream Fri 19-Jul-13 19:26:59

My DB lives in an ex council flat in Central London and the block is full of people who have lived there for years. His next door neighbour is a women in her early 60's in a 3 bed flat, never worked wondering how she can transfer it to her late 20's son.

All wrong....

handcream Fri 19-Jul-13 19:30:21

Mrs Sparkles. People asking for a higher wage dont get it. This country has lots of businesses like yours. As long as they are are OK its fine. They just dont realise that there wont be the jobs or there will be less of them Are they buying British?

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 19:38:51


Can you see though that the wage you pay your staff isn't enough as considered by the gov and they will probably be receiving tax credits.
I'm not saying its your fault btw.
My dc will sometimes arrange a band for a wedding. People won't pay more than their budget and it is usually the band who are at the bottom of the list.
He then pays everybody from this budget. Sometimes taking into consideration the travel costs, fuel, time etc, hours playing, setting up, sound checking etc. Its quite often not the min wage.

MrsSparkles Fri 19-Jul-13 20:07:52


I get that - so how could I pay my staff more. If my corporation tax bill went down say, but that will only happen when government spending goes down which means cutting benefits. It's like a never ending circle with no clear point to start.

I would love to pay some of my staff more as they do a fantastic job, but we literally don't have the money to.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 20:23:50


I understand and know you can't do anything about it.
I agree its a never ending circle. At least your business pays you enough. My dhs doesn't, even though he works all the hours.
I don't think it will change anytime soon, just the same as folk won't stop benefit bashing grin
I'm sure your employees understand the situation and tbh in this climate its nice to see small businesses like yours surviving.

JakeBullet Fri 19-Jul-13 20:37:45

I wasn't disagreeing with you handcream, just pointing out that if people earned a living salary (ie one where they did not need top ups) then our benefits bill would fall.

But choices are not always made..for example, I CHOSE to have a baby. Wr could afford him and he was planned and wanted.

I DIDN'T choose that he would be autistic
I DIDN'T choose my husband walking out

If my son was not autistic I would still be in work and thankfully my job was wel paid. Not in the higher tax bracket but not far off.

So choice is all very well but sometimes life points and laughs too.

Darkesteyes Fri 19-Jul-13 21:03:55

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Darkesteyes Fri 19-Jul-13 21:06:42

handcreamFri 19-Jul-13 19:18:21

A proper wage for what Jake? We all have choices, some choose to have their children very early in life with no means of support or with a errant man.

More mysogyny from handcream... what about abusive men who deliberately make their wives pregnant by raping them and interfering with their contraception so that they have child after child and its made more difficult to leave.

Darkesteyes Fri 19-Jul-13 21:11:54

Why are some men pulling out womens IUDs.

Darkesteyes Fri 19-Jul-13 21:13:14
PhallicGiraffe Fri 19-Jul-13 21:23:12

It is loads, because I work full time, in a job that is quite a bit higher than minimum wage, and I don't get tha much.

A link to our talk guidelines for those who may need them

RonaldMcDonald Fri 19-Jul-13 21:55:01

I think that if you cannot afford to have children you shouldn't.

I feel the same way about buying stuff you can't afford.

To be clear this doesn't include those who have become sick or who have disabled children or have had to become carers to ill family members. Benefits are supposed to be there to support us when life events take over.

Benefits should not fund SAH parenting.
If you want to SAH, save up whilst working and when you have saved enough try to become pregnant. Or ensure that your co parent earns enough to support your life choice

Tax credits must stop for all but the actually needy.

Pigsmummy Fri 19-Jul-13 22:07:35

20k tax free! I wish!

EeTraceyluv Fri 19-Jul-13 22:26:45

Yep, after tax, mortgage, bills, children. food we have about £- 50 a month and we work. We used to get tax credits and that really made working worth it as we could just about treat the kids occasionally, but they have been slashed because we earn just above whet people on out of work befits get,, and yes I resent that. But it is the government's fault, not the claimants, however, it is bloody tempting to jack it all in and get the same for doing fuck all

martini84 Fri 19-Jul-13 22:46:10

So tax credits apparently shouldn't fund sahp. Surely that top up is no different to funding low paid workers with wtc. When i finished maternity leave afyer having a child i decided not to return as the cost of chilcare meant i would be working for equivalent of about £2 per hour. Yet a single parent got 80 per cent of her childcare paid. Yet dh and i as a team were putting more in. It didn't bother me as its right to support lower paid workers. However it did mean that when we had our second child i will actually be worse off working.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 19-Jul-13 22:56:14


So a low earning household shouldn't receive tax credit then, especially if this allows a sahp.
So how would that help exactly?
Do you expect a sahp to work for nothing after child care costs?
Working pt which is most jobs you'd find now of min wage, you'd be lucky to earn enough to pay tax.

Even full time on min wage you'd end up taking more out of the pot than you put in.
Is tc 70% funded childcare? its certainly more than you'd pay in tax.

Don't let that stop you bashing though grin

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 19-Jul-13 23:51:18

Tc funds up to 70% providing your childcare is below certain amounts dependant on how many kids, the % reduces as your income increases

trampled Sat 20-Jul-13 00:55:24

There should be jobs for every able bodied person.

Why is there a deliberate shortage of jobs?

There should be homes for everyone.

Why are we not building houses?

The sick should be cared for.

Why are we forcing sick people to work or starve?

There is plenty food available.

Why are people hungry?

The true answers to these questions are deeply disturbing.

bob404040 Sat 20-Jul-13 01:12:41

i work 45 hours a week and dont get 20k WTF

are you taking the piss

bob404040 Sat 20-Jul-13 01:15:31

what also winds me up is the fact that we import about 3 millions scroungers every years that live of benefits.

it should be benefits for british people only who have had a uk passport for more than 10 years.

not the whole of europe and eastern russian states

bob404040 Sat 20-Jul-13 01:17:02

if you moved to poland and had a child what would they give you fuck all.

come to britain and get 20k a year a house and spending money

ok rant over now

FanjoForTheMammaries Sat 20-Jul-13 01:30:25

What gets to me is..people have no idea of actual figures and just believe and regurgitate the shite they read in the Daily hate spreading Mail

morethanpotatoprints Sat 20-Jul-13 01:34:53


these same people don't bother to listen though, nor check it out for themselves, like most sane people would do with a subject they know little or nothing about.
Maybe we should take the attitude of "Forgive them, they know not what they say"

EllieArroway Sat 20-Jul-13 01:40:35

What gets to me is..people have no idea of actual figures and just believe and regurgitate the shite they read in the Daily hate spreading Mail

Fucking right.

Darkesteyes Sat 20-Jul-13 01:43:57

Or what they read in Woman magazine who seems to have it in for single mums.

filee777 Sat 20-Jul-13 06:40:58

I believe that every family should be allowed and supported to have a sahp for the first few years of their children's lives if they so choose.

Unfortunately right now it's impossible for working parents to do that so it is yet another luxury afforded to the non working class. Of course we are supposed to be all happy about it because our 'prospects' are better or whatever the fuck you lefties are going to bleat on about next but in reality it's bullshit, it's one group of people being afforded a decision denied to hard working counterparts.

Which no matter how you try to spin it and stompy around about how 'unfair' anything that changed that might be, is bollocks.

sashh Sat 20-Jul-13 06:44:23

considering they dont pay any income tax.

Actually some benefits are taxable.

Runningchick123 Sat 20-Jul-13 07:07:45

jakebullet. I wouldn't put somebody in your situation in the unemployed benefit category. You are a carer for a disabled child and carers work enormously hard, much harder than most in paid employment. If you were not able to care for your son then the state would have to pick up the tab for an appropriate residential placement which would cost a ridiculous amount of money. Carers should get the minimum wage for 35 hours a week (although they always work far far more hours than that) as the current £58 a week carers allowance is an insult to the work that they do and the toil that it takes in their own health.
Having a disabled child would not be anybody's choice and therefore is not a lifestyle choice. I am very aware that appropriate childcare is not available for children with autism and other learning disabilities so parents of these children have no choice but to stay home and be carers.

I do hope the govt go through with their plans to limit benefits to two children for those already claiming unemployment benefits (not those who already have more children and then become unemployed) because then I will really believe that people are not just having lots of children to get more money and navigate around the current return to work schemes.

MrsSparkles Sat 20-Jul-13 08:03:14

morethan sorry about your dh. The business doesn't really pay me enough but I'm very lucky that I have a high earning DH who subsidises me. We both used to work in the city, but I left after DD as we decided it wasn't fair for us both to have such demanding careers, and went to work for my dad - I'm the 4th generation of a family business.

Back to benefits smile, Jake your situation sounds like exactly what benefits were set up to be - a safety net for those who have fallen on difficult times while you get back on your feet.

Disability benefit drives me crazy - the man on the program who'd been on disability for 20 years - there must have been some type of job he could do? A family member holds down a job in central London, so commutes (on the tube), international travel etc - she was paralysed in an accident at 14. For a lot of people its about motivation, and rather than saying I can't do this, we should be thinking about what you can do and how to make it happen

ArtemisatBrauron Sat 20-Jul-13 08:20:35

All these women saying it would not make sense for them to work as the childcare would be the same as their wage, so they'd "be working for nothing" make me confused

If you give up work for years, say 12 years until 3 kids are all at school you miss 12 years of contributions to your pension, both state and private and are thus completely dependent on your DH for support in old age.

If you give work up for good and become a SAHM then that is even more the case.

Let's hope all the women doing this are married to men who won't die/leave them for 30 year olds when they are 50...

I like to know I am paying my taxes, NI and building up a pension pot independent of my DH's income, so my potential poverty in old age doesn't entirely depend on someone else staying married to me/staying alive.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 20-Jul-13 08:25:04

If you give up work for years, say 12 years until 3 kids are all at school you miss 12 years of contributions to your pension, both state and private and are thus completely dependent on your DH for support in old age.

No you don't. Child benefit provides state pension contributions for those years ( I cannot remember off the top of my head exactly how many years but I'm pretty sure it is 12 it used to be more but that changed a few years ago)

As does carers allowence if your a carer.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 20-Jul-13 08:26:18

Far better that a percentage of childcare is paid for a few years than to pay for a parent to stay home. At least the person is trying to self support, outcomes for the child/children are better in non benefit households and if the relationship goes wrong they still have a job and recent work experience.

Scrap all child related benefits and invest the money instead in childcare would seem the ideal situation. That way new jobs are funded, parents have no excuse not to work and childcare costs could be kept very low. If a parent then chooses not to work, it is done so on the understanding that this is a choice they have to fund themselves. It would put everyone on an equal playing field.

StormyBrid Sat 20-Jul-13 08:27:23

bob benefits only for those who've had a UK passport for a decade? So no benefits for people who are too poor for foreign holidays then?

filee long term contraceptives as a condition of benefits? Aside from the human rights issue you've acknowledged, what happens when contraceptives fail?

filee777 Sat 20-Jul-13 08:40:18

Well thats the beauty of it i suppose, when contraception fails we can still support the children.

I would always rather see adults regulated than children denied benefits.

I know its a human rights issue, i just dont understand how childrens rights always come after parents rights.

martini84 Sat 20-Jul-13 08:54:58

O so we have gone from benefit bashiing to sahm bashing. What joy. With my previous example the single parent working 16 hours was probably tearning aboy 7k gross so not exaxtly giiving lot back. Yet at the time the only support we received was child benefit and minimal tax credits. Yet dh was a hrt putting loads into the pot.
So no the state is not paying me to sahm.

RonaldMcDonald Sat 20-Jul-13 09:30:16

Barring those individuals who have different circumstances because they are caring for others or are disabled I think that if there is to be a cap then it should be universal.

If the household cap and therefore maximum benefits a family can receive is £25k or £20k as some have suggested then that must be replicated across the rest of the system.

Added to that we need flexibility for occassions when someone has a life changing event. Benefits should be there to cradle you in such circumstances. Treat you well and support you to get your head around it and allow time and the finance needed to get back on their feet.
This means for a yr or two. Not for ever.

If tax credits were scrapped and 100% child care vouchers provided for each of your first two children we would be in a better position.
We wouldn't talk about working 'for nothing'
We'd have a chance to study or look for work or career change
The govt could ensure that child care facilities knew that they'd get a voucher AND NOTHING MORE.

It would then mean that SAH parenting was truly a lifestyle choice. Not wrong or questioned but done as an actual choice.

I think that paying 100% for child care would make a huge difference to women, families and the country.

We'd have a workforce of women available for careers and innovation that are currently held back by costs of child care.

Scrapping tax credits could easily pay for such a move forward.

countingmyblessings Sat 20-Jul-13 09:32:35

As a sahm who attends groups filled with childminders and mindees, I feel sorry for them. I have had to witness a 4 month old baby screaming blue murder (on several occasions) for her mother & toddlers constantly vying for a minutes attention from their minder. I would rather miss out on a full state pension & the niceties in life than have my children suffer.

StormyBrid Sat 20-Jul-13 09:33:46

filee I can see some sense in that idea. But it's not regulating adults, is it? It's regulating women. On a practical level your idea can only be implemented in a discriminatory way, with men claiming benefits regardless and women having to agree to medical intervention first. I can't see that going down too well, and rightly so.

peteypiranha Sat 20-Jul-13 09:34:44

I hope they put more money in to childcare. I think we.are extremely lucky that we can work and have children now, and hope by the time my dds are older that childcare help will be expanded further. I think it gives people on low incomes a chance to better themselves, and I much prefer it to a life on benefits.

filee777 Sat 20-Jul-13 09:45:46


I actually dont think even Womens Rights are more important than childrens rights sorry. While we have families who are quite happy to have loads of children they cannot afford, often in overcrowded situations at great detriment to those children, we must look for a solution

the only two i can see is in regulating parents (or women if you want to be gender specific about it, i see no reason myself)

or cutting benefits to children.

I know which one I prefer.

countingmyblessings Sat 20-Jul-13 09:53:13

Ronald in theory your ideas might work. But in practice? I don't think it would quite take off. What would happen to existing families in the process?

StormyBrid Sat 20-Jul-13 10:02:29

I'd prefer a middle ground that recognises the rights and needs of everyone rather than protecting one at the expense of the other. Depends how forceful you want to be though - you're suggesting the state controlling fertility, whereas I'd prefer increased education and opportunities so less people are inclined to go down the babies on benefits route. Tempted to take that one over to FWR because it's an interesting topic but I'm a bit too ill to think it all through.

CloudsAndTrees Sat 20-Jul-13 10:05:30

JakeBullet - in a situation like yours, the money you need should be given in reaction to your child's disability and your responsibility as a carer. They should not be there because you are a non working single Mum.

The outcome of you receiving the money you rightly need would be the same, but the principle would be entirely different, and it would be better.

MrsBucketxx Sat 20-Jul-13 10:05:47

ok going back to my original point.

if a person who gets 20k benefits he effectively gets 6 grand more than a person working take a look at this page to do the sums

CloudsAndTrees Sat 20-Jul-13 10:12:38

Darkest - what you are talking about can only be responsible for a very tiny proportion of unaffordable pregnancies, and the links you have provided are about America anyway?

Since when are we supposed to base our welfare state on what goes on thousands of miles away from us?

I can accept the possibility that in a small minority of circumstances, similar may happen in this country. But the answer would be to improve women's services and to give women easy access to support in leaving abusive relationships. Then when they are no longer victims, they have the same chances to provide for their children as any other single parent. The answer is not to just hand out money.

GinOnTwoWheels Sat 20-Jul-13 10:38:05

I think its wrong that tax credits are paid on unlimited numbers of children and the tax credits system makes it not worth parents of larger families working more than a few hours a week.

Its wrong that people can choose to work very short hours and have the taxpayer subsidise this.

For those who want actual figures, according to, a relative of mine, who has 5 DCs and both partners work just the right amount of hours (about 2 days a week each) to maximise tax credits, get £21k per year in a combination of child tax credits, working tax credits, council tax benefit and child benefit. They own their own home with a tiny mortgage and have no disabilities or childcare to pay.

Its wrong that the tax credits system is used to subsidise poor wages, but it also means that those without children also have to work for poor wages without state help.

nickymanchester Sat 20-Jul-13 10:45:08


I think that one problem is a large amount of that £20k is going straight into over-priced social housing rental bills, making some not-very-nice landlords seriously rich.

The experiment of outsourcing our social housing has been a disaster. I do not understand why, if we are all supposed to be a nation of home-owners, the government doesn't want to own its own social housing, instead of renting it off some very greedy, untrustworthy and unsavoury landlords.

beast You really do not understand what ''social housing'' is, do you?

Social housing is not provided by private landlords, but by local councils and housing associations. Housing associations are not-for-profit organisations that invest any surplus in maintaining properties or buying new ones.

As I said above, of all those households getting housing benefit, two thirds are in social housing and only one third are in private rented accommodation. So most of these greedy, untrustworthy and unsavoury landlords are actually local councils and housing associations.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 20-Jul-13 10:45:14


Enforced pregnancy is a very very usual aspect of DV woman's aid do conferences about it.

Women and children who have fled DV also do not have the same opportunities as other single parents often for some years after fleeing.

Putting more money into the services costs more than going via the benefits system.

ArtemisatBrauron Sat 20-Jul-13 11:01:39

sock fair enough - but this depends on what type of benefit you claimed, I have a couple of friends who left the city to become SAHMs and they don't claim any CB as they say they don't need it. If they break up with their husbands, esp. if this happens in 15+ years time then they are screwed in old age as they have missed out on so many years of work.

Also, the state pension barely provides a decent standard of living and a SAHM is still missing out on contributing to a private/workplace pension which could afford a much better standard and avoid them being dependent on the state/destitute in old age.

I still find it a bit [confusing] that people claim financial reasons for being a SAHM if their wage equals or is slightly less than childcare as the benefits of staying in the work place are so numerous i.e. stay on the career ladder, keep moving up the pay-scale, gain more experience, be in a position to be promoted rather than trying to re-enter the workforce after 12-18 years out of it.

If people want to stay home, fine that's great, do it, but the financial "I'd be working for nothing"argument just doesn't stack up.

You're working to contribute to your pension, secure your old age, show your children that women have a place in society outside the home and that mothers do not have to stay at home to be good mums etcetc

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 20-Jul-13 11:08:46

Every parent can still make a choice to claim CB if you are over the financial limit and still want the sahp to claim the working parent just does some jiggery with hmrc and the money paid gets sorted out in tax.

And how interesting that unemployment benefits are deamed to be huge but state pensions are not afaik the state pension is higher than Jsa and if that s your only income you can claim the same support Jsa claimants can with housing ect.

FasterStronger Sat 20-Jul-13 11:09:37

isn't part the reason why some men want more children is to increases their household income?

so the state is enabling these men.

CloudsAndTrees Sat 20-Jul-13 11:11:12

Putting more money into the services costs more than going via the benefits system.

Maybe, but surely the outcomes would be better?

Personally, I don't mind paying tax to fund things like that. There are some things that are worth spending more money on.

Funding people to have children they can't afford, or paying for their choice to SAH when they could work is not worth spending money on IMO.

It's about people's attitudes, and I agree with a welfare state that supports people who need help because they are disabled, they are carers, they are trying to get through the few years where they have pre school children and can't afford childcare, they are fleeing domestic abuse or they have been made redundant and are desperately trying to get another job.

But I strongly disagree that the welfare state is there to support people that have the wrong attitude and make selfish and thoughtless choices.

CloudsAndTrees Sat 20-Jul-13 11:13:02

The difference with pensions is that they are needed because people have become too old to work. We don't give out pensions because people have made bad choices, therefore pensions are worth supporting.

ArtemisatBrauron Sat 20-Jul-13 11:14:42

sock yes, I know that. My point is that many, many middle class professional women with husbands don't do this as they blithely assume everything will be fine and that they will be supported by DH all their lives.
It astounds me that so many women are so naive - almost 50% of marriages end in divorce and yet women are still the ones who, seemingly by default, give up work to do the child care.

And even if they do do this, they still only end up with a basic state pension and no workplace pension. So if the DH leaves them, they could end up with no house, and only a state pension to live on. So they are still very financially dependent.

How many times have you heard a man say that he is leaving work as the cost of childcare would mean HE is working for nothing? Why is it always the woman whose wage is seen as the one linked with child care?

I see it as a joint family income, out of which childcare comes - I don't think either party would be "working for nothing" you'd both be paying cc costs and both contributing tax, NI and pension payments.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 20-Jul-13 11:16:09

We also don't give out benefits to people who have children over 5 who are fit for work (the parents not the children) unless they job seek.

If people are not job seeking its up to the assessor to work that out and sanction them.

I can't afford to work. Dh' salary only just covers our modest bills (one banger, no sky, camping hols). We'd have to fi d an additional £50 per day after I'd spent all my salary on childcare to top it up and then another £20 for travel. Where woukd that money come from?

I literally can't afford to work.

Sock, how coukd a woman get a salary that would cover childcare for 5?

Very rare are those jobs, they require substantial financial and time investment which are resources a family like that is extremely unlikely to have.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 20-Jul-13 11:22:18


I quite agree, I think more men should be forced to do what is expected of women without question it should be just as normal for a man to be as an active parent as a woman is.

I also get quite eyebrow raisey over families where the child care costs are automatically coming out of the mothers salary and deamed to be just the mothers responsibility especially ( and I'm seeing this more and more) where couples don't have joint finances.

ArtemisatBrauron Sat 20-Jul-13 11:23:01

starlight I know this is the case for lots of people with 3+ kids, I was talking about people who would earn equal to or only very slightly less than the CC bills, prob with 1 or 2 kids or in a highly paid job.

I am a teacher and a female colleague has just left work because she worked out she would only "get" £300 take home per month after CC and tax deductions etc. Her husband earns a lot so she is going to be a SAHM. In this situation I personally would continue to work as for me, the benefits of paying into pension, staying on career ladder etc outweigh the negatives of being quite broke for 3 years until child is in school.

I am not saying she should work, it's a personal choice, but I would not feel comfortable not securing my own financial security in old age if there was any way possible that I could do so without being dependent on my DH for survival.

ArtemisatBrauron Sat 20-Jul-13 11:23:41

sock yes, exactly!

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 20-Jul-13 11:29:14

Starlight that is not my argument I quite agree that its expensive I also quite agree that unless you either qualify for the full 70% childcare element or have a very high paying job being a sahp is often the way to go.

I think your mixing me up with anti welfare benefit posters,I'm not nor have I ever been anti benefits nor am I anti sahp I also know that if your low paid and a lone parent you cost the state more money than if your not working.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 20-Jul-13 11:39:59

One of my friends works 16 hours per week she works around her disabled teenager so is only able to do 16 hours her child requires round the clock care.

She earns a few pence less than £100 pw the child's DLA does not cover the additional cost the disability incurs neither does the addition of the various elements the disability entitles her to,nor the addition of CA. Her childcare so she can work those 16 hours costs £217 per week,she works because she always has but no matter as soon as UC comes in she's going to get treated like scum (not my word or her judgement) and be judged as being a lesser human being like lots of people treat unemployed people because whilst she won't be expected to work more than 16 hours due to carer status she will still have to utilise the job centre and comply with there requirements.

Beastofburden Sat 20-Jul-13 11:41:54

@nickymanchester, apologies for using slightly the wrong term. What I mean is the large number of vulnerable families whose rent is paid via housing benefit. They are often in private renters accommodation on, and those landlords make a mint out of it.

JakeBullet Sat 20-Jul-13 11:49:33

Perhaps we are going to see changes in how society views the planning of families.

I don't know really.

When I was a midwife and a HV I saw the odd family with lots of children. Generally the Mum was the only parent and had a string of failed relationships behind her. She often (but not always) had a horrendous childhood too.

What I DO know about these families is that children were not planned....they were just the byproduct of a relationship where the father might or might not stick around for any length of time. Certain,they were not the result of the Mum thinking "if I have another child I will get x in extra benefits". Her life was often far too chaotic for such level thinking.

It is all a bit sad tbh. Life is not a bed of roses for such families and definitely not always for the children.

Btw, I don't mean large families per se....I mean specific large families living in poor housing, where there are ongoing concerns and issues such as school attendance, low level neglect etc.

Beastofburden Sat 20-Jul-13 12:20:48

I did 7 years as a SAHM mother and then went back to work. A lot of my early working life was spent making no money out of it. With 3 DC, the youngest profoundly disabled, the salary, CB and disability living allowance only just covered the childcare, and I had to take a job with a crappy commute in order for the pay to be enough. Even now, in my 50 s, ds2 still needs 24/7 care so I pay for childcare after school for a 17 year old, and it takes half my take home pay. Has it been worth it?

I help my GP train medical students, and one thing they always ask, is how come I am what they call "resilient" which is polite medic-speak for not depressed. A lot of my fellow mums at ds2s school are very low, and they feel their lives are very hopeless and restricted. For me, earning and having a career has been important for me to feel that I have some control over my life. It took a long time for me to make any money at it, but it has kept me happy and sane to have that other side to my life. And I will have a workplace pension, which will be much appreciated.

I chose to be a SAHM when my older kids were preschool and I still think there is a great deal to be said for that, educationally as well as financially. Once they are at school, even the most disabled kid is out of the house for 6 hours a day, whoopee, and then I found it very helpful to build a life for myself. But in the shorterm you will make no money at it. Though I do think that childcare is attributable to dhs salary as well as mine, in practice that's just not quite how it feels.

Viviennemary Sat 20-Jul-13 12:26:56

It does puzzle me when somebody earning £20,000 a year has to pay income tax. But yet £20,000 a year on benefits is tax free. I don't think anybody earning less than the benefits cap should pay income tax. That would be a lot fairer for everyone.

filee777 Sat 20-Jul-13 13:22:07

stormy given the 'you're hitler' reaction to that suggestion I have had in the past I am glad you are not attacking me for it!

I would simply suggest that after the second child, in order to claim benefits, a doctors note backing up contraception for the claimant, I think preferably it would be long term contraception, which I think it would recommend anyway