AIBU to think I would be better off on benefits

[parno]

I know I am going to get flamed and I promise I am not a Daily Mail reader, just really cross and a trifle pissed off......however.......

I have just read letter from DD's school advising that this coming school year they will be setting a budget for school trips - £30 pr yr. Parents whose kids are on free school meals do not have to contribute a bean, plus get packed lunches provided when off on trips. It got me thinking. I work full time and earn just over £20k. Get a little bit of maintenance for 2 DC plus a bit of CTC to put towards childcare. However I went on line and filled in the Direct Gov benefits caluculator (not much on tv until Wallander comes on).

It told me very proudly that I would be entitled to over £415 approx per week or £1800 approx pcmonth. That doesn't take into account Council Tax Benefit, free schol meals, money towards uniforms either. I take home about £1300 pcm but have to pay rent and CT out of that. I would effectively be about

I just don't understand why I have spent the last 13 yrs working F/T in order to amke ends meet, missing out spending time with my DC and generally meeting my arse on the way back round every single day.

Have I got this wrong? Is my maths really roobash? Am I turning into Katie Hopkins? Please shout at me and stop me being so right wing.

the major points as i see it are

how many kids

housing costs eg,council or private

these make the difference

i have put my figures i recieve up thread but then i do have three children
so basically if you have one child and in LA housing the figures are low,change that to 3 children and private renting the £££££££ stack up

surely these are the points

carer, I don't see the relevance of that point

mrsdv I understand how hard itisfor you to admit that central unfairness butI think ityour heart you do recognise it

Neither do I Accuracy. But its impossible to have a conversation on MN about benefits without someone forcing DLA or carers allowance into it, even when those benefits aren't remotely relevant. It's just the way it is.

Stop talking such utter rubbish. I Am not backing off due to the quality of your debate.
It's because it seems to consist of of 'you sound bitter' and 'I know you are but what am I?'

'I think in your heart you recognise it'

That is hilarious

no sorry perhaps I shouldn't have commented on your apparent bitterness, it's just other people on your side of the debate are very quick to talk about resentment, envy, bitterness etc etc and it seems that's an attempt to distract from the central unfairness

I'd be quite interested to know then -- do you not think it's unfair that working person A pays money to non working person B and ends up with less disposable? your last comment seems to indicate that point of view is hilarious but I don't understand why

or maybe explain to me why it's fair, whichever you choose would be ok

Your turn of phrase was hilarious.
Your insistence in telling me what I think is just annoying.
My view is this, just in case you have a genuine interest.
I think the debate fairly pointless as it is based on the assumption that people choose to be out of work in order to claim benefits.
Then various myths about what people get are thrown in to the mix
Then it is generally ignored that most people pay in and then take out only when they need it.
And that the syste, is available to almost all those who need it
And the people who complain the most ate generally those who are doing ok and have no experience of living on benefits.
And that being out of work can happen to anyone.

And that people with jobs and comfortable homes should stop feeling envious of those thy perceive to be better off than them because of threads like this.

HTH

there you are with the envious thing again

people aren't envious, they are just pointing out it's unfair

why can't you tell me whether you think it's unfair

I thought the clarity of the post might confuse you.
People are pointing out what they think is unfair.

You think something is unfair. I think you are mistaken

yes i think it's unfair. Why am I mistaken? Why is it fair for working person B to have less money than non working person A when person B has contributed to the income of non working person A?

Is there something really specially difficult and mind-bogglingly confusing about this question? Why is it so hard to answer?

obviously so

Because you are assuming that a. It is fact and b. that person B has not contributed to the income of person A.

Person A might be a 25 year old university educated mother of two. She may be in receipt of Wtc and Ctc and free nursery hours.

Person B might be a 50 year old childless man who has been out of work for 3 years.

He has spent his adult life subsidising person A.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that I have answered your question and that not agreeing with you is not the same as not answering.

It does not matter how many times erroneous assumptions are corrected on these threads, people will believe what suits. In your case (in the terms you prefer) that seems to be that people on benefits are better off than those who work.

To reiterate, I do not believe this to be true.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about what I truly feel, deep down in my unbitter heart.

If it doesn't, we'll I am not sure what I can do apart from tell you 'yes, you are right, it's unfair that people on benefits are better off than those in work'

Will you be waiting till midnight to post "I knew you couldn't answer"

Because you do realise I will be in bed don't you?

I was just having my dinner, not baffled into silence by your Paxmanesque questioning

Agree with all Mrs D says, and just to add that most people "on benefits" do work. It's a sliding scale. The DWP figure have around 5 times more people claiming some kind of In work benefit than those claiming out of work benefits.

Sorry to trouble you with facts Accuracy.

Ah now I understand that you mean if people have paid in then it's ok for them to get more than working people. Yes that's definitely one explanation, but then the state would be acting much more like a personal insurance system and well, yes, maybe it should act that way. Would you recommend that? I would not call your example unfair either.

Also that would mean much more distinction in distribution of benefits between people who've paid in and people who haven't. I think a lot of people would like to see that though I'm not sure I'm one of them and I'm not sure how it would work in practice.

x post

I'm sorry mrs dv I am not interested in winning an internet battle of wits in the smallest possible way, or being bitchy, or scoring points. I am quite interested in this subject. I don't understand people who think they are on Question Time and have an audience. I think your example is interesting.

accuracy I work for a charity and my job involves helping disabled people claim benefits and appeal unfavourable decisions. My job is becoming extinct for obvious reasons. When the legal aid bill comes into force in April 2013 many colleagues of mine will lose their jobs and people will no longer be able to access free legal advice. As a result, many disabled people will be worse off because the government has brainwashed people like you into thinking that claiming benefits is a lifestyle choice. For the vast majority IT IS NOT.
Also I would like to dispel the myth that one can be better off on benefits. It is impossible to be better off on benefits. What is possible is that someone on a liw wage with a couple if kids could more or less break even because they'd be something like £50 per week better off working but they need to pay for petrol, work clothes, childcare etc which makes them pretty much break even. Yes that sort of situation is unfair i agree. However it is unfair because petrol and childcare are outrageously expensive and salaries are not keeping up with inflation. The problem is not that people on benefits get too much. The problem is that it is so expensive to work.

"it is unfair because petrol and childcare are outrageously expensive and salaries are not keeping up with inflation. The problem is not that people on benefits get too much. The problem is that it is so expensive to work."

Yes, I agree with this. And when people have worked all their lives, they should be supported if they find themselves unemployed in a recession.

There is also a problem with wage structures - why are the people at the top of companies getting £million salaries and 50% salary increases when their employees have to claim benefits to survive?!

If it's any comfort OP, I did not find the benefits calculator that accurate. I have only claimed benefits for the past three months. My son is autistic so my benefits are a bit skewed to take into account extra bits like DLA. However, I can tell you that I am not as well of as when I was in work - even taking into account things like housing benefit. In fact I don't know how people getting less than me cope financially.

The benefits calculator added in things like Carers Allowance but did not factor in that it would be deducted from any Income Support for example - so my income from benefits appeared to be £220 a month more than I actually recieve.

It's crap that you are struggling, how helpful is your school about helping parents who might not be entitled to benefits but who still find things hard? Our school is very good and supports all parents who need and ask for it.