Who really gets £500+ weekly state benefits?

[vivizone]

I find this shit so hard to believe. Reading the media, you would think this was a common figure on life on benefits.

Yesterday and today's Metro newspaper - people writing in saying they agree with the cap of £500 and why should people be sat on their arse and be rewarded by £500 per week. . Why should they earn £200 per week working and people are getting £500 a week doing nothing.

Seriously, who gets this £500 per week that is being peddled out of the media? I spent 7 months out of work after redundancy and I could not live on the pittance I received for me and my children. I do not know how people do it. I really don't. I had a decent redundancy package and that was the only way I could make it.

How many people do you know (forget the newspaper stories) that are RECEIVING £500 or more every week? I thought so.

How come if life is/was that cushy on benefits, not enough people are/were packing in their jobs to join a life of riley?

We have been had. Life on benefits is HARD and DEMORALISING. I have tried it and I can tell you you get PEANUTS.

The reason why stories run on people living in million dollar homes/getting thousands a week in benefits is because it is RARE. It is SO rare, that it gets reported on.

Those are pay scales- I think ssd wanted a total breakdown of tax credits, other benefits and all the outgoings (bearing in mind a teacher needs a lot more childcare than a TA who often works school hours only)

I must say I didn't realise quite how badly TA's were paid. Starting pay for full time £9,000-£10,000

Out of interest I just ran £20K (higher level TA) and £35K (teacher) through the Turn To Us calculator for my situation. Fuck all on the second figure and 4K extra on the first. A VERY conservative childcare costs-estimate is £14K. And that is based on only 39 weeks as I would be at home working during the holidays.

Add the other expenses already mentioned and yes, I'd go for the T.A job. It would also mean that when I was home from work I would actually have time to talk to and interact with my children. And all weekend too

I agree with Janey68

I'd also add that for most working parents the issue is unsubsidised ludicrously high childcare costs.

SSD I will happily give you an example...

The following illustrates a working couple and paying childcare vs a couple whereby one works pt on minimum wage and the other stays at home to care for DCs. I can give accurate figures as I am basing this example on my own situation and that of my DSIS who is here with me now, discussing the merits of working FT or PT.

DP and I have a combined gross annual income of £63k + CB. After deductions this equates to £3932pm. I work 40+ hours pw with a 2.5 hour daily commute earning £43k(gross) DP works 40 hours and earns £20k (gross). We have 3 DC?s (13, 3 and 6m). We do not qualify for tax credits. Our essential monthly outgoings are as follows:

Childcare for DD2+DD3= £1748.
School dinners for DD1 = £40
School Music lessons for DD1 = £26
School Bus for DD1 = £20
Prescriptions for colitis = £30
My Fuel to work and parking =£200
DP?s fuel to work = £120
Rent = £700
Council Tax £123
Total = £3007
Income remaining to cover all other household bills: £925

In comparison?..

SIS works 24 hours pw on minimum wage and lives in a rented property also costing £700 pm. Her DH looks after their 3 DC?s (2, 4 and 6), whilst SIS works 24 hours per wk at a local shop. Their weekly income is as follows

£662.69 PT job
£268.32 WCTC
£716.17 CTC
£99.40 Council Tax benefit
£618.84 HB
Total monthly income £2365.42

After contributing towards her monthly rent (£81.12) and council tax (£24.96) and fuel costs they are significantly better off than we are with a disposable monthly income of £1541. Add to that free school meals, prescriptions and dental care and they?re left with about £700 more than us. SIS has also enrolled on a photogrpahy course which costs £695 but she recieves 90% subsidy (something I am a little envious of!).

In our case, its the childcare that crippling, I know this will drop as our kids get bigger but in the meantime it really is better of one of us gives up work! Which is just as well as DP has been made redundant!

Even if DP stays at home and I continue to work in a stressful job doing 40+hours pw with a further 13 hours travelling I would still be worse off than my sister, hence we are sitting here discussing the options of me leaving the rat race in favour of a part time job at the local coffee shop!

thank you mumstonic, someone with an actual example instead of thinly veiled insults and hearsay

You're welcome ssd.

We forgot to add CB of £204 to my sisters monthly income, so looking again at the figures it really does make more economical sense to downshift to PT work!

Total madness though, we would go from paying tax on two FT incomes to not paying any tax at all, yet still qualify for benefits equal to a £30K salary AND be able to work PT under income tax threshold!

Thank you mumstonic - I'm glad you agree. Its a ridiculous system and a real disincentive for people to work in challenging, skilled, medium paid jobs

mumstonic

Did your sister actually say she received free school meals for the kids?

Most LA's will not award fsm if the household receives working tax credits even if your income is below the threshold.

I am in the last year of my degree, I used the turn 2 us calculator and I will be no better off when I qualify whilst I have children. And that's the key isn't it? When my children are all grown I will still have that wage, whereas if I kept working in my current role, I would have a massive drop in income once my children reach 18 as tax credits would stop.

It doesn't bother me too much as I know in the long run, I will be better off.

Fluffygal- the longer term is the main reason some people keep working through the time that childcare wipes out their earnings. HOWEVER I think that another aspect of our dire economic situation is that many of the 'carrots' that previously existed are no longer there. If you know that your pension is going to be slashed in value (despite contributions increasing) and you know that if you work hard you'll end up having to sell any assets to pay for care later on (whereas if you don't have any assets the same level of care will be provided for you!) then it's yet another example of rubbish systems which don't incentivise people to work hard and be financially independent.

Maybe there's a phase inbetween having young children and high childcare costs, and bring screwed at the end of your working life too... Though looking at some of my friends with older children going through uni who have to pay for their maintenance because the adult child isn't entitled to the full loan... And looking at other friends with even older children who can't downsize because their graduate children can't afford to move out... I do find myself wondering how long that phase will be!!

We have a whole generation Who have been sold a lie: work hard, do well and you will be rewarded.
More like: work hard, do well and you'll find you're no better off than if youd worked less.

mumstonic, no way would your sisters children get free school meals on that income.

mumstonic you would be better off getting a pre paid prescription certificate if you are spending £31 per month on prescription charges.

A three monthly PPC is £29.10. This saves you money if you need four or more items in three months
A 12 month certificate is £104.00 and saves money if 15 or more items are needed in 12 months

well janey, you were right and I'm totally shocked!!

If your DSIS gets WTC then it makes her ineligible for free school meals....been there. I get them now as a non working Carer.

I just called my sister and she advised that she thought she was entitled to fsm but we've just checked online and she isn't. Only one of her DC's is at school and she sends a packed lunch anyway.

You have just called you sister?

did you tell her you need to query something as you are discussing her benefits on MN?

What was her response?

mumstronic thank you very much for posting your financial (and Dsis's) situation. i too am shocked. really shocked. i have always believed that i would be better off working full time regardless. i'm about to become self employed and under the new universal credit system it appears i will have to be earning the equivalent of full time hours at minimum wage but as much as i hate to say that, i'm wondering why i am bothering after looking at your figures. i'm sure i'm not the only one thinking that. that really is very disheartening.

But mumstonics figures [hers not her sisters] basically show that she pays a lot of childcare as do many, her sisters situation may seem 'better' but she is earning min wage which mumstonic clearly isn't, how long will mumstonic be paying out that level of money on childcare? certainly not for long.

When her childcare costs go down she will be quids in whereas her sister will still be earning the same as she is now with the same disposable income.

Lots of people talk about the benefits of being skint due to childcare costs for a while but it being worth it in the long run just to keep a career [and high earnings] going long term.

Workfare doesnt help matters either. Just found this through Twitter.

profiting from workfare; encourage organisations to pledge to boycott it; and actively inform people of their rights.

Know your rights! Visit consent.me.uk and donotsign.com

Workfare in Shoe Zone this Christmas
Posted: November 23rd, 2012 | Author: boycottworkfare | Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
This week, Boycott Workfare has been contacted by a concerned member of staff working at high street retailer Shoe Zone. Their first hand experience, which they bravely wanted to share with us all, provides yet more evidence that workfare is replacing paid jobs. As with Argos and Superdrug, Shoezone are using ?work experience? from the job centre to cover the busy Christmas period instead of employing temporary staff or giving current staff the option of over-time. Here is their story:

?I work in Shoe Zone in the south east. This week our manager has held three ?interviews? with people sent from the job centre. They are to help us for up to 30 hours a week for 8 weeks over the Christmas period. One of them stated he would only be getting his bus fare paid by the job centre. This is to be called ?work experience?. If there is work to do over Christmas surely we could hire staff for 8 weeks in a proper fashion? I am sickened that my manager imagines they are doing these people a favour of some sort to ?let them experience work?. I get the feeling that head office will be very pleased with themselves too to keep a store running smoothly over Christmas without actually using any extra resources, when these work experience placements can pick up the slack.

The three people start today on this ?work experience? and I am terrified by the idea that head office think they don?t need to pay their staff and can run a store with people from the job centre. i myself am on part-time minimum wage and if they can have workers for free now what is to stop them making my position redundant and using job centre people to run the store at no cost to themselves? If my hours are cut next year, i shall know why.

I do not feel its right these people will be expected to do the same work as our usual staff. Even worse, i will be expected to keep an eye on them to make sure no mistakes are made when pulling stock and writing labels etc- extra work we could do without at Christmas time. They will not be authorised to use the tills or ordering system but everything else including dealing with customers, they will be expected to do. Its a disgrace. I fear for the safety of my job at the moment and in the future if this ?work experience? continues.?

Landlords see most of that especially in private let's

Amber raises a very good point.

While the sister may be better off now, mumstonic would be much better off in the future. mumstonics has a higher earning potential when her kids get older and her sister and sisters dh will struggle to find a ft job each. which probably won't pay as well as mumstonic

Terrible isn't it TheHumanCatapault? What's with them letting someone else live in their property and paying to maintain the property and paying tax on their income? Surely they should jaunt let people live there for free, no matter how much they paid to acquire the place.

Landlords do see the majority of that £500, yes.
Anyone saying that working people would also have to find that money is blind to the fact that the biggest claimants of housing benefit are those in work in low income jobs.

The housing market prices are obscene and need correcting, then the cap won't cause unnecessary suffering.

Oh come on Freddos. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts either, these 'properties' are assets. They will one day ultimately profit from them.

Mumstonic, the difference between your family and your SIL is that she's going to be buggered when the kids grow up and you, barring disasters obviously, will not be. With that in mind, I'd think very carefully about giving up your 43k job.