workers are an underclass?

[soggy14]

Does anyone else feel that we are heading into a society where anyone working is becoming a poor underclass whilst the "well off" are those on benefits? Okay not as bad but approaching the Downton Abbey type senario where those of us in paid employment are downstairs and (some of) those on benefits upstairs.

And yes I know that some people on benefits need them and genuinely cannot work but many I think do not need them. And I know that I will now get flamed by hundreds shouting that they are struggling on benefits :) but we are struggling on our incomes but also need to work all the time and seem to be worse off than those doing nothing yet are having to support them :(

Well we did lose our house and haven't been on a foreign holiday for years.
We go camping about twenty miles away in the Purbecks so that after 3/4 days DP can leave me and the DCS there and go to work and come back to the campsite in the evening.
We've never managed a whole week because we can't afford the time off work.
DP is self employed.

mrsscoob - Is that aimed at me? Because I truly do believe that people need to understand that it is NOT a bed of roses being on JSA/IS, you barely have enough money to put on the electric meter each week, let alone be 'well off'.

While DP works FT on a low income, I am glad he earns more than minimum wage (about £4k more pa, he's on £16K pa before tax), as we would already be totally unable to get by on his wages as it is without Tax Credits, and if he earnt minimum wage, the situation would be untenable. Minimum wage on it's own is NOT a living wage nowadays. Is that the fault of thse not in work? NO. It's the fault of his employers and what the government sets as minimum wage. (under pressure from big business bosses?)

To the person whose DH is a HRT payer, and is working themselves - if you are that stretched, your house is TOO BIG. Downsize. Dc do not need a room each. I would hazard a guess that you may need to re-prioritise your finances!

Isn't take home pay on £50K amost £3K a month, not just over £2K?

DrN can I assume that you are in this position then because we certainly are not - still watching a CRT I'm afraid as we do no thave money to throw away on anything like that :)
I agree with Violethill - I work PT for a very basic wage from home because I could not earn enough FT to afford the childcare (because we do not qualify for childcare benefits).
Moving is not an option because the cheaper houses are nowhere near the jobs and dh needs to get to London on a regualr basis. He has been made redundant 3 times now and struggled to get this job - I suspect that we'd have been better off if he'd not bothered and we'd gone onto benefits then.

I completely understand that people CAN struggle on £50k a year - but it's daft to think that people on benefits have it easier.

So your husband earns over 50k? And you earn also - how much?

You're an idiot.

You have an asset: your house, which will, once you get over the struggle of young children and their costs, gradually become yours. That is more wealth than most people can dream of.

You have a car - if you can't afford it, don't run it. You could always walk your kids to school, or get organised and share it with other people: that's what truly poor people do - stop moaning and share their expertise and resources.

I'm sick of hearing about people on benefits having a sense of entitlement: the really 'entitled' are the moaning middle Englanders who think they deserve more than the socially excluded.

Nonsense.

how do you know you are worse off?
I have no idea about other people's finances

You do know that students can take out loans to pay for university don't you? Parents aren't expected to pay before they start.

You are also being ripped off for your septic tank imvho. It might be worth starting a thread asking others what they pay.

Buy a cheaper house? You looked at the housing market? And how much it costs to buy/sell? That's assuming you have a mortgage anyway. Loads of people in work are renting.

Move jobs? Not easy in the current climate

Cycle to work? I wish - would cut down the hundreds of pounds a month petrol bills. But not when it's over 20 miles and you start at 7.45 am

I totally agree that it's preferable for many reasons to be in work than out of it.

But the assumptions that if you are in work you just 'buy a cheaper house', or 'move jobs' or cycle to work are way off the mark. I repeat: it's as absurd to assume that everyone with a job is living the life of riley, as it is to assume everyone on benefits is.

thegrudge - students cannot take the full maintenance loan if their parents are deemed to be earning too much. We regularly have to top up dd's rent and utility bills - and she works every Sat and Sun too.

You have to be on over £40,000 a year if you have three children to be better off working, that's all i am going to say

soggy14 - Despite DP only earning £16K pa and me out of work due to disability (though not getting any disability benefits, long story), we are STILL better off by about £40 a month after all our additional costs with DP in work than with him out of work. That is with the aid of Tax credits though, and if DP earnt any less, then we wouldn't be any better off with him in work. This is where I think you have a few misconceptions, as on any wage above £15.5K pa, you will be better off with at least one person working.

It's only if no-one in your household can earn more than that that you would be better off out of work. And TBH, if your educational qualifications and work experience are that low, you have much bigger problems socially than being on JSA/IS and 'living the life of Riley'.

If the only job you can hope for leaves you with not enough money to cover your 'basic' living expenses (which is all JSA/IS covers), then why would you PUT yourself in the situation of not being able to afford to feed your family? It's NOT about benefit rates, it's about wages being paid.

curlymama - I fully understand that smaller businesses would be totally unable to stay financially viable if minimum wage was lifted to a liveable level, as you say, your workplace just couldn't pay you any more. BUT that doesn't change the fact that minimum wage is not enough to cover the costs of living, and if the employers are unable to cover those costs, then the Government is doing that for them (thus sibsidising businesses) by paying Tax Credits to the lowest paid workers.

Tax Credits were originally established because the (then Labour) Government realised that there was a big discrepancy between the amount of money a family needed to survive, and the amount of wages that businesses were willing or able to pay, and something HAD to be done to bridge that gap.

The house you are paying for is an asset and will eventually be paid for. You mention deductions for health and pension. Private pensions and private health insurance are not available to those on benefits. I think you made a bad choice when you bought your house. You could have bought something cheaper - even in the south east. We used to live in a London suburb. It wasn't the most salubrious area of town but we could afford it and I know it's still possible to buy there for a lot less than you paid. Pretty good transport links too, so no car required.

The other thing - and I'm not saying this is the answer but it's a hugely reassuring safety net to have - if you're earning a good salary, people will always loan you more.

Credit cards, mortgage, personal loans etc.

If you're on benefits nobody wants to know you.

I didn't disagree with that riven. Long term.

But many people in work - even with seemingly good wages - have very little choice in the short term. If all of your income is going on living costs, with nowt left over, then the idea of moving house, finding another job, etc is ludicrous.

Long term - totally agree. It's better to be working.

I think the Govt has realised though, that expecting people to work for years and years and be hardly any better off, just for sake of eventually having a house you might be able to pass onto your kids (after they've swiped a nice slice off through tax) or for the sake of a dwindling pension (if you don't drop dead of exhaustion at 65) is not good enough. People who are working deserve to be better off in the short term too. I think it's shit for people on miminum or low wages, and very tough even for people who arent

Violethill, you can continue to maintain them the same way as you did when they were at school. If you are earning over £50K you should be able to afford to feed an clothe them for an extra 3 years. I don't think its right that an adult child who is unemployed is not considered to be the parents responsibility whereas a student is but its just silly for a higher rate taxpayer to claim their children can't afford to go to university because they can't afford to feed and clothe them even when they will still get over 70% of the maintenence loan that the child of a workshy dolewaller will get.

Rent a house in Greece (or other cheap/warm country with direct flights) for buttons, rent your house out for £££££, commute in on easyjet when you need to visit the office.

Feeding and clothing them is one thing. It's the rent and utilities that are the killer.

And actually, the point, as you say, is that it isn't right that an adult student is still the financial responsibility of the parents. If my dd jacked in her Uni course, she could claim benefits. Because she is studying, we have to pay her living costs.

Absurd is not the word

It is absurd but not more so for a person who can claim 72% of the maintenence grant than it is for someone who can claim 100% of it.

Lots of people live with parents to save money. I commuted 3hrs a day when I was a student because it was cheaper than paying rent. It was a pita but I didn't complain that students who had poorer parents had is easier than me because they didn't.

It limits the choice though, doesn't it?

And choice is something that is supposedly what being better off gives you. It's been mentioned many times on this thread.