"Strivers vs Skivers" - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Prompted by a blog post this week from MN Blogger Sonya Cisco, and this opinion piece by BlogFest panellist Zoe Williams, for our first blog-prompt of the New Year we thought we'd ask for your thoughts on the current debate around benefits cuts.

According to both Sonya and Zoe, politicians have deliberately encouraged us to think of people as either 'skivers' or 'strivers' in order to pit people on low incomes against one another - and to divert attention from the fact that the economy simply can't provide enough jobs.

Do you agree with them? And if not - why not? Post your URLs here if you blog - or, if you haven't got a blog (why not? ) do tell us what you think here on the thread.

what circumstance does one get 24k (inc. housing costs)

i mean suddenly there is this 24k figure - upon what it this based?

i think the offense is to subsist on 12k a year

If someone is able to claim 24k due to housing costs then the problem doesnt lie with the benefit system, but with the cost of rent in this country and the in-it-for-profit landlords taking the proverbial. Oh and the difficulties surrounding getting a mortgage which can all be traced back to the bankers.

If we dont want the welfare bill to be so high why arent we taking the money out of rich landlords pockets instead of out of the mouths of the poor?

Are you really suggesting that living on £24K net would be a hardship

No.

Im suggesting that those who think benefits are so so generous try it for themselves before they say things like that.

The vast majority of benefit claimants get no where near £24k per year in benefits. Nothing like it at all. That seems to be the figure that is spouted though.

well said wannabe

Xenia came up with the 24K figure, whoever asked earlier.

I put in single mother, 2 single (my situation), no job and living here in not particularly expensive outer (not inner) London. SO surely the state ought to say well chances of gettnig a job are tiny so let us move you from there back up to where you came from (a much cheaper area) and save a lot of money or say I have to share a bed room with the children as an incentive to force me to look for work or put us in a hostel with 12 beds a room or something that is much less comfortable than minimum wage workers might afford.

Also the new benefits cap which is not yet in force from April will have £500 a week £26,000 (which is the equivalent of £35,000 a year if you are working and pay tax) sa the upper limit for housing benefit and benefits although I think not including child benefit

Xenia, do you realise you are suggesting workhouses in that post?

Is your hatred of the poor really that strong?

that linked calculator shows that i'd be about £250 worse off a month under universal credit. i work part time, am single and have one child and live in relatively cheap accommodation. all i receive is wtc and ctc currently and would be £250 worse off!?!? i wouldn't be able to afford to work basically. let's hope that calculator is wrong.

and weirdly that calculator shows that the child element shrinks massively when you start working which is odd - does a child become cheaper because you're at work? i thought the child element was supposed to be applicable to all unless they earned over a set amount?

just did it again and added £150 to my rent - re: moving out of my cheap housing association house and into a private rental. works out in such a way that there is no incentive for living in cheap housing - i'd be no worse off moving into a more expensive property.

same thing has happened with housing benefit by starting work though - i've lost any entitlement despite being told i'd get it because of how low my income is but if i move to a more expensive property they'd pay the difference in rent.

it does seem weird that there is zero incentive for finding cheaper accommodation.

xenia i suspect you are adding in the adults who live with you as your 'children' which will be skewering the figures - you can't count over 18's. if you only include your actual 'children' a) you'd lose the child element for them and b) your house would be 'underoccupied' and you'd get far less housing element.

the bedroom tax does come into force Xenia, and that means that people will have to downsize and share rooms. So your idea is already being put into practice.

the HB will only cover entitlement, so if you are entitled by the govt rules to have a 2 bed flat or house for which HB will be paid, however - you decide to stay in your three bedroomed house ( beucase its easier to look after your disabled daughter whose disability will not be taken into consideration for the calculation unless very severe) then as the tenant you will be expected to pay for the 'spare' bedroom. which is 14% of the rent out of your own money.

looking at it the figures really aren't accurate - nor do they take into account council tax. that calculator appears to be codswallop thankfully.

I just keyed in single non working mother and 2 teenagers and got £24,000 which is under the benefit cap so probably about right. It just seems quite generous - £35,000 o f before taxed income for doing absolutely nothing all day. I was assuming was for a 2 bed flat. I didn't key in that I owned a property as I was doing an experiment as single mother with 2 children who does not work.

that calculator says we're £708 better off in work??

as if!!

but that doesn't make sense xenia - i can't see how you got that given i got such a paltry amount when i did it - i doubt it more than doubles when you have an extra child.

no i don't believe it i'm afraid xenia - i've even tried putting 3 kids and a four bedroom house and i still get nowhere near the figure 24k.

bear in mind if you've put your actual housing costs in and in fact there are more bedrooms than required for you and your two teens you wouldn't get the amount stated - it shows me a warning for that if i try to put in a three bed house. if you've put 'mortgage' and therefore selected no no. of bedrooms you'll be getting a vastly inaccurate result.

In any case even if you were working you might well get benefits yo top up a meagre wage. Its not as simple as saying "Id get 24k for not working".

I am not working and get nothing like £24k

The calculator also over estimated tax credits etc. I didn't find it accurate at all.

To get the 24k figure you put in £1200 -ish rent per month.

Also, as a single mum of teenagers, you wouldn't be able to 'do nothing all day', you'd be expected to be looking for a job or have your benefits cut. Unless they drastically change the system from now. Which seems unlikely.

Xenia, thw country's bankrupt because high flyong bankers were playing unsustainable, silly games with money, and because people like Cameron and because of unfair tax loopholes and because Starbuck et al have been shifty.

Not because of over-generous benefits.

Jux - that's not fair. Gordon Brown deliberately doled out cash that he didn't have in order to make >50% of the electorate dependent on hand-outs (benefits, tax credits etc), hoping that would win him the next election.

Custardo there are plenty of employed people down here in Devon who exist on less than that. If you're a single farm labourer I'd be surprised if you hauled in more than £10,000 a year, probably less. Most jobs are advertised at minimum wage, and many jobs are seasonal. So loads of people live on that even if they're in work. The net result is that there a very thriving and successful barter economy.