Conservatives maintain that every working family now pays £3000 a year to fund lifestyles of those who do not work.

[moondog]

In addition, there are 3.9 million British households where nobody works-an increase of 200 000 over a decade.


Blimey.

[southeastastra]

the tories did end all or most of our manufacturing industries though didn't they so not surprising

[said]

And Kenneth Baker was on the radio today saying Thatcher was really a lovely woman. Those tories eh?

[conniedescending]

that sounds like a huge over estimation - where have they got the figures from?

[moondog]

That's what i am trying to find out.
Story in Telegraph but only on ppaer it seems, and no additional info.

[coccyx]

I believe it having seen some of the low lifes on Jeremy Kyle,
Lazy sods wouldn't work if there were jobs in manufacturing

[usualsuspect]

here we go again ....

[DilysPrice]

Are we including households consisting of retired people here?

[pozzled]

And households of students?

[ninah]

how does that square with WTC, lots of 'working families' get that?

[Chil1234]

So if they give me back the £3k tax do you think I could offer it to one of these non-working households to come and do a few chores around the house?.... Sounds like a bargain! :)

[onimolap]

I've no idea where they got the figures from, nor whether they are at all rooted in fact.

But this sort of "redistribution" is surely inherent in a system which talked of reducing inequalities (the previous administration's mantra). Might this be testing the actual appetite for such a philosoph if the population is really faced with the costs?

And it does nothing to illuminate one possible root cause - that we are all living still in an over-inflated bubble where the average household can't actually afford the average life without state intervention?

[moondog]

'we are all living still in an over-inflated bubble where the average household can't actually afford the average life without state intervention?'
That seems to sum it up pretty well actually.
I can't get my head around the fact that the sstate subsidises (and indeed, seems to have tto subsidise) wages earnt in the private sector.

Bonkers.

[ThisIsANiceCage]

And here's an example of the "lifestyles" of the "not working":

'Karen became a carer for her husband when he was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis and chronic arthritis. She told The Trust: ?Since Mark became ill we have cascaded into poverty. I was declared bankrupt; I have lost a well-paid job, our house and the future we thought we?d have ? all as a result of my caring role. I was so desperate I even borrowed from a loan shark to cover an electric bill and was charged 47 per cent interest per day....

We can just about cover the bills, but we still struggle to pay for food and cover our rent..?'
(Broke and Broken: Carers Battle Poverty and Depression)

Lifestyle. Nice, isn't it.

[southeastastra]

they should just lower tax

[Sidge]

I think there are a significant number of families where not working is a choice. As long as not working is as financially viable as working (which it can be for many families) then I can't see how the cycle will end.

I have absolutely no problem with people claiming what they are entitled to when they are unable to work. I do resent those that make a deliberate choice not to seek some sort of paid work and expect those of us that do to subsidise their lifestyle.

[onimolap]

I had a family member who was similarly wiped out financially because of her DH's severe illness. That is why I said I had no idea about the validity of the figures they quote. If it could be demonstrated that this was the cost of helping the vulnerable in crisis, any stats would look different. But if state support isn't reaching people like those in TIANC's example, then where is it going?

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

I don't know - I wasn't that shocked by this, in fact pleasantly surprised! It is an average presumably, so taking into account really rich types, perhaps we as a family are paying around £100 a month towards this 'insurance'.

Ok so there will always be some benefit cheats and some people playing the system, but if that £100 goes towards supporting lone parents, disabled people, those who genuinely can't work and supposedly provides a safety net for us then am not bothered

[DeckTheHallWithBowlsOfPomBears]

Can you link to the source OP?
Are they including those who don't work due to illness / carers?
Or is it those on JSA?

[expatinscotland]

Does this figure include pensioners drawing state pension and carers/disabled people?

Sounds like spin to me.

[BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree]

really?? So someone working 40hrs a week minimum wage is paying £3000 to fund my lifestyle..........when they don't even pay that much in tax and NI?????

[ThisIsANiceCage]

If it's literally "households which don't work", it will include trust fund kids, single SAHPs funded by alimony not benefits, etc.

[BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree]

that's awfully clever of them isn't it

[edam]

yeah, I suspect the figure may not bear too much scrutiny.

Wonder if the Tories will do an equivalent calculation showing how much extra tax we are all paying (and how many services we are losing) as a result of tax avoidance?

[southeastastra]

we pay fuckin loads of tax now

[BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree]

and.......someone working 40hrs a week at minimum wage (with a family to support) will more than likely be getting Tax Credits......so how does that work out?

Or the LP working family where they work part time and pay tax and get HB, and WTC....are they contributing £3000 to themselves - or does it get split 50/50?