Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

A worker on £40k per year is £39 pw better off than his unemployed counterpart.

180 replies

orwellian · 16/10/2013 15:40

I find this astounding.

A nuclear family in one of the outer London boroughs (2 parents, 2 kids) with husband sole breadwinner will have an income of £30,007 (£577 per week) on a £40k wage plus child benefit of £1,750 per year or £33 per week. Council tax is approx £30 pw. A travelcard from zone 4 into town is £43.60 per week.
Pay in full for school meals.
Pay in full for prescriptions.

Weekly total (minus council tax and travelcard) of: £536.

A nuclear family where both parents are unemployed in London would get;

child benefit x 2: £33
child tax credits x 2: £115
2 bedroom LHA allowance (outer London) of: £236 or 3 bed if children are different sexes and over a certain age: £300
income support/jobseekers allowance: £112.55.
No or little council tax to pay.
Free school meals.
Free prescriptions.

Weekly total of: £497 (2 children both same sex) or £560 (if different sexes or one over ten).

So, the household with one earner on £40k per week is at the most £39 a week better off than their unemployed counterpart and the unemployed family is not affected by the benefit cap unless they claim the 3 bedroom rate of LHA.

Work really doesn't pay does it.

OP posts:
timidviper · 17/10/2013 22:25

I don't think anyone is suggesting being workless is an enviable lifestyle are they? I think a lot of people would agree that it should not pay the same or more than working though.

MrsDeVere · 17/10/2013 22:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

oliveoctagon · 17/10/2013 22:23

Also they might get housing benefit now but once their children leave they will be living in a tiny awful dump. It doesnt sound that appealing.

oliveoctagon · 17/10/2013 22:20

Here if you stay at home its 99% you have no prospects, have to live in rented insecure housing and low disposable income. Not something I envy even though they get large amounts on paper they have no assets, no security, no control and its not an enviable lifestyle like the op suggests.

humphryscorner · 17/10/2013 22:16

If the OP is right, then its thoroughly very fucking depressing. This country is fucked up.

Also I read some where that a large portion of people using the food banks are workers - don't know if that's true...

When I was on my own with DD1, worked and claimed tax credits ,housing credits and council tax- I was financially better off than me and DH are now and we both work.

It doesn't pay to work or go straight these days.

MrsDeVere · 17/10/2013 22:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsDeVere · 17/10/2013 22:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Chubfuddler · 17/10/2013 22:12

I work part time as a solicitor and receive tax credits. How interesting to learn that I have no prospects.

HeGrewWhiskersOnHisChin · 17/10/2013 22:09

Definitely changed. I first claimed benefits in April 2004. I think this was when the changes happened because I remember it really mattered if my DD was overdue or not ( she was).

Cb was not deducted then and again when I had to claim 4 years ago it was the same.

HeGrewWhiskersOnHisChin · 17/10/2013 22:09

Definitely changed. I first claimed benefits in April 2004. I think this was when the changes happened because I remember it really mattered if my DD was overdue or not ( she was).

Cb was not deducted then and again when I had to claim 4 years ago it was the same.

frogwatcher42 · 17/10/2013 22:06

Olive - I think it is naive to assume that working part time and getting benefits in the form of working tax credits and housing benefit means you have no prospects. You have the same prospects as somebody working part time with a dh in the background, but not getting benefits due to the second wage.

I also think you are wrong re most people wanting to work full time with a dh. There are many of us that choose to work part time. Also there are many women who choose not to have a dh - they are not single simply because they cannot find a dh!!!!! If I had my time again (and it is still a possibility now!) I would choose to not have a dh!

MrsDeVere · 17/10/2013 22:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HeGrewWhiskersOnHisChin · 17/10/2013 22:04

And to the poster who said the op incorrectly doubled the tax credits ...

When I was unemployed with 2 DC 4 years ago I got £100 per week tax credits. So it sounds about right for it to be just a little over that now.

Wallison · 17/10/2013 22:02

Agree entirely that we are becoming a low wage economy with a high cost of living. And the biggest cost of living is housing - as seen in the example worked out in the OP, housing benefit is their biggest chunk of income, and that will just get passed on straight to a landlord. There are £billions every year going from public funds to private hands in this way.

oliveoctagon · 17/10/2013 22:01

frogwatcher - Most people would prefer to be working full time with a dh than being single on benefits with no prospects

frogwatcher42 · 17/10/2013 21:56

All figures in above post made up of course. Just did another one based on having a dh and it isn't so successful. Guess I will just have to get rid of him then!!!!!!

I really don't think that it can be stressed enough that the problem isn't with benefits (people have got to be able to live) but with the high cost of living and the low wages.

frogwatcher42 · 17/10/2013 21:43

I just did an entitled to on myself to see if I could afford to live without dh income. If I reduce my working hours to 20 and earn £18k, I will receive over £14k in benefits (mixture of tax credits and housing benefit). That's equivalent to a wage of £32k for working 20 hours a week. In real terms it is equivalent to more as the benefit part of the income would be tax free.

If I was in this situation why would I choose to work full time for a wage of £32k when I can get that (and the extra due to it being tax free) for not working full time.

The system is very odd.

frogwatcher42 · 17/10/2013 21:37

I think the numbers do stack up. Once the figures are worked out there isn't a lot there for a family of 4.

The simple fact is that in the same breath there isn't a lot left from a £40k wage for a family of 4 either - particularly as to work costs quite a lot of money in real terms (running an extra car for anybody rural, travel, parking, suits or work clothes).

HeGrewWhiskersOnHisChin · 17/10/2013 21:37

The figures in the op are right.

Cb is not deducted from Income support either. You get the 70 odd pound (single person amount) plus the cb and tax credits.

Why is it when people want to talk about how much benefits actually are, others accuse them of getting the numbers wrong?

It must be really hard for people to hear the truth.

Wallison · 17/10/2013 21:28

No, the numbers do add up - he hasn't counted the CTC twice. However, if like I say you discount housing benefit (which goes to the landlord) our hypothetical unemployed family's income is £261 pw. If you make the deductions I stated ie that they are paying some rent, some council tax and say £10 a week transport costs from that, they are left with £198.05 which sounds like a lot but that's for four people and will have to cover all household expenses, bills, food, clothes etc.

HeGrewWhiskersOnHisChin · 17/10/2013 21:27

I got out and looked at this year and last years tax credit award.

2013-2014 I've told them I will earn £2500 more than the previous year 2012-2013.

I assume this takes me above a special threshold... As my tax credit award is now less £4500 than last year.

My pay rise and promotion has actually meant I'm £2000 worse off.

I don't blame the unemployed or the people who earn less, I blame the stupid system!Confused

NotDead · 17/10/2013 21:20

rates on small businesses are weird, its councils taxing oeople on low incomes and irregular salaries so that duffers in nice suits can have big pension plans and bice workibg environments. Cuts mean..oh no we must raise more money from the businesses that can't object. . so they go out of business and bigger businesses in out of town sites who can resist get better deals.. its all about pushing money upwards at tge moment. ..

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 17/10/2013 21:08

I agree with everyone who has said the issue is not with benefits but with wages. We have artificially suppressed wages - maybe partly related to our credit culture and because home owners have become dependent on property price inflation to provide them with cash rather than lobbying for better wages.

There are also huge benefits with being an earner that those on benefits do not get:

  • pension contributions
  • private medical cover
  • sight test vouchers
  • maternity leave
  • childcare vouchers
  • sick pay
  • death in service benefits
  • support and infrastructure.

I would take that £39 any time. (not that I believe those numbers add up)

KatieScarlett2833 · 17/10/2013 21:01

£300 JSA?
The couple rate is about £120.
I smell shite.

oliveoctagon · 17/10/2013 20:57

We are on 32k between us and I would describe us as affluent compared to the vast majority

Swipe left for the next trending thread