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.

I think if you have a lot of children, claim dla for yourself or child/ren and have hb. It can add up to that amount easily, but at least £100 of that you wont see as it goes on rent and council tax, if you have to claim dla that should be spent on things that would make you or the person your claiming for's life easier or more managable, if carers allowance get's paid then an amount of that get's taken off whatever unemployment benefits you may receive.

Can you actually get dla for asthma? bloody hell I should claim dla for myself then

Asthma I think has to be really awful claim, not standard. It's not the illness that matters but the impact of your everyday life and ability to manage.
One person with autism might get nothing, another might get low rate, and another high rate. It's based on needs not dx.

for me and my 2 i get 303. thats rent, child benifit, child tax and income suport.

thouse who would get 500 plus is thouse with LARGE familys living in expensive areas like london. and or privet renting.

Good luck if you can negotiate your way through the 50 page + form when you claim.

which is why they wanted to move thouse on benifits out of expensive areas like london to smaller town. to lower the cost. makes sence in theory but there wouldnt be enough housing or jobs so doesnt really work out .

Yes Dla is about need not diagnosis. My ds gets it based on the fact that he requires help above and beyond that of an average child his age (particularly personal care needs). Those thinking it is is easy to claim should download the forms so they actually know what they are talking about rather than making assumptions.

Actually, in London it is fairly easy to reach £500 or almost.

A 2 parent, 2 child family on benefits would receive (in my London borough) for a 2 bed rented flat;

Local housing allowance per week: £290
Income support/jobseekers: £111.45
Child benefit x 2: £33.40
Child tax credits x 2: £103

So a total of £537.85.

That doesn't include all the other free stuff like free school lunches, free prescriptions, free or subsidised nursery, free or subsidised school trips, help with uniforms etc.

My MIL gets disability living allowance and carers allowance.

She's 70, has diabetes, arthritis, heart disease and depression. She cares for my FIL who is obese, incontinent, has vascular dementia and incapacitated from a stroke.

Her life is really, really hard.

Those people who are arguing that those who live in London should move to cheaper areas - London is where most of the jobs are.

I know families who live in London who have been in the area all their lives. Their elderly parents live close by. Their children are settled at school. All their social support is on their doorstep. Are you saying that if these people are in private housing and they are claiming housing benefit which pushes them above the 500 pound cap, and if reasonably priced social housing can't be found for them, they should be forced to move far away from all of their family, and uproot their children from school ? How fucking awful and depressing.

Seriously - if we're THAT desperate to cut the benefits bill, can we not just stop giving pension tax relief to millionaires and handing out winter fuel payments to rich pensioners? Shouldn't it be a case that benefits are given according to SOCIAL NEED?

"Just as an example, a friend of mine, lovely lady, is a qualified teacher but chooses to work as a classroom assistant because in her words 'with tax credits topping up my low wage I earn pretty much the same as I would if I was a teacher with no top ups. Why work about twice as many hours a week with about 5 times as much responsibility and stress?'"

And the school are getting the skills of a teacher for the price of a TA. Which is a saving of about 15K. Probably a lot more than what she gets in benefits.

Or maybe classroom assistants could be paid enough to live on, and then they wouldn't be needing support from the benefits system in the first place.

People with large families, I suspect get big benefits.

Minifingers - yes they should have to move if they can't afford it. That is exactly what families who are not entitled to benefits have to do if they lose their job or their rent/mortgage goes up, they have no choice and no sympathy from the government, even if, like the benefits claimants in your example, they have local family, kids in local schools etc. Welcome to the real world!

Orwellian, there are no "families who are not entitled to benefits".

When someone not on benefits loses their job, they usually become entitled to benefits (contribution-based JSA). When their rent goes up, they may become entitled to benefits. If their mortgage goes up they have the option to sell and live off their capital until it's gone and then they are entitled to benefits.

Children being uprooted from school is not really the issue, it's informal care.

Social networks provide childcare - especially emergency or unsocial hours childcare - allowing parents to take up low paid jobs. They provide shopping and bathroom scrubbing and laundry for elderly parents or even temporarily ill family members who can't do these things. And that's before we get onto stuff like hospital transport and paying for acute illness when low-level care would have been preventative.

Destroying social networks appears to save money in one place but costs money in another.

As an aside, I find it really weird that some people seem to have an image of The Tribe of Benefit Claimants, as a permanent status and definitely Other.

And when you point out that, ahem, actually the poster themselves claims benefits (Child Benefit, pension, tax credits, whatever), they say "Oh no, I don't think of myself as a Benefit Claimant."

WTF?

Parsingfancy - not true. There would be families who earned too much in the financial year to be entitled to benefits (even if they have not saved any of it) or people who have savings that are just over the threshold or who live in mortgaged homes.

Yes, yes, of course there times when an individual is not entitled to benefits. But the moment their circumstances change as you describe - eg losing a job - they may well be entitled to benefits.

For example, contribution-based JSA is not means-tested. It is the insurance payout you get for having paid National Insurance. Over the years it's been eroded, but is still there. Ditto ESA (the replacement for Incapacity Benefit).

It's all according to circumstances, not membership of some Tribe.

People with large families, I suspect get big benefits

Think again. We live in a small house with a small mortgage and I keep bills etc as low as possible. DH lost his job on Tuesday with no notice and we dont know whether he will be paid what he is owed in wages, redundancy etc or when. I have put our claim in and the done the calculator and believe me, it is not generous. We were well below average wage anyway, and our income will now be half what it was.

Try living on benefits before you decide that its the life of Riley

I'm sorry because it appears we were misled on Monday and child benefit is included in the cap ( bizarre as its still a universal benefit until your tax code triggers clawback now).

I love all this moral outrage, the lowest earning 60 percent of all households are negative contributors to the state ie take more out than they pay in, and that percentage is even higher for children with families. I always strongly suspect at least a few of those shouting loudest are actually being supported by others to raise their families through the services they use, although of course they never see the money so that doesn't count does it .

I got a decent sum when I was claiming due to serious illness. I got dla and also income support as I still lived with my gp's. I cant remember the exact amount but I must have been getting at least £300 a week and I was a single person with no dependents.

I also know another mum whose benefits have recently been stopped who was getting £900 a month-and her dh works. I know this is true because she told me so herself....

It helps if you've always been in the system. The hardest hit are those who have had a job and a mortgage and then find themselves in reduced circumstances.

I know a few people who live a very good life on benefits. In one case (and I would suspect there are many others) the landlord to whom the housing benefit is paid is a family member. There is a whole network of this so it must be well organised and difficult for the authorities to unravel.

"The hardest hit are those who have had a job and a mortgage and then find themselves in reduced circumstances. "

This is true, particularly if they have been prudent and saved.

Orwellian - "they should have to move if they can't afford it. That is exactly what families who are not entitled to benefits have to do"

oh I forgot to say I agree with that

Parsingfancy - I don't know why you find it weird. There are those who find themselves in difficulty after working or through disability, who are on benefits temporaril. And there are those who are never off large amounts of benefit, have been most of their lives and will be most of their lives.

I have a friend 5 DC's ... 3 different dads (still with the youngest 2's dad) she lives in a privately rented house which is paid for (and it's a beautiful house) ... she gets her CSA for 3 kids council taxed paid for and all the usual benefits .. and her OH also get's some kind of benefit for being in a low paid job ... which according to him is about £800 extra in his pay packet ... My friend get's in benefits ... what i work 40 hours a week for ...

Why do I work?