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 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

That would be fraud.

Not representative of the average benefit claimant. At all.

No, it isn't automatically fraud - you can get HB for renting from a family member in certain circumstances if you declare it. If you hide the fact it's a family member, it is more likely to look dodgy.

Minifingers- referring to your post in response to mine about my teaching assistant friend- YES, precisely, a teaching assistant should earn enough to live on. And a teaching assistant who works 35 hours a week should earn more than one earning 20 hours. And a teacher should earn more than The teaching assistant to reflect the reap

Oops - reflect the responsibility they shoulder and the workload, skills etc.

Spot on- that's absolutely the logical solution.

But while we have a system where the part time teaching assistant can earn pretty much no different to the full time one because of tax credit and top ups, and the full time one can earn practically as much as the teacher once top ups and other fringe benefits are taken into account- well no wonder the Country is a mess

Like I said, the most low grade menial job should pay better than the employee would get if they didn't work. And those in higher level jobs with greater resp

That's an argument for a living wage, Janey. And I'd agree with it - ridiculous that we have a country where employers can pay their workers less than the workers need to have a roof over their head and food in their bellies and the government then props up those bad employers.

Dammit I'm all over the shop today!

Those with greater responsibility should earn more to reflect that. Those who work more hours should earn more than someone in the same job doing fewer.

It all seems so logical - the problem is, the complexity of the welfare system and in particular the fringe benefits such as free scripts and dental treatment mean that its possible to play the system to work less to gain maximum advantage. You just need a month where you pay out for three prescriptions and have a couple of fillings at the dentist and you are literally HUNDREDS of pounds down.

In short- I think those with really serious disabilities and illness are the worst off. I think those on mediocre incomes who don't qualify for any benefits are next worse off.

Shadylane, what you are describing in your post at 9.55 is the social/council housing system, not benefits. The two are not the same thing. Not all benefit claimants live in social housing (it would be cheaper if they did!) and not all social housing tenants are on benefits.

There are also Brycie those who through disability will be on benefits all their lives, wanting, but unable to work.

Janey - or you could argue that the most boring, repetitive and physically damaging jobs should pay the most.

All jobs should pay a living wage, especially ones like TA's!

janey68, you posted this earlier

"I completely agree that the real problem here is low wages. The lowest waged job should enable the worker to be significantly better off than they would be if they didn't work. The key word there is significant. If when all the extras such as free prescriptions, dental care, school meals are factored in, someone is only about £20 a month better off, what incentive is there to work? And this applies most in low skilled, low status jobs, Because frankly, the cash in your hand is probably the only motivator to work. If you are in a professional career, you are probably driven as much by the intellectual stimulation, the job satisfaction and other factors, and these aspects help get you through the times when you're training and early in your career when wages aren't great. In a menial job you're less likely to have these motivators. "

well what an absolute cheek

I work in a minimum wage job as if fits in with the kids schooldays. Dh earns below average. But I work to set my kids an example, to earn money to pay the bills, to meet people and be stimulated, to go out to work and have a routine, to keep myself involved with the outside world....

you are suggesting only people in a well paid job have motivators to work, well thats tosh

if I lose my low paid job I'll look for another one, most people want to work not claim benefits if they are lucky enough to get and keep a job

and janey68 if you're not a tory I'll eat my hat

Oh grow up ssd this isn't about party politics.

I don't have any issue with people choosing to work 15 hours a week if they can afford to do so. What I take issue with is a system which makes it possible to work 15 hours a week and get topped up to a level where someone working more hours in the same job, or working in a significantly more difficult and stressful job with more responsibility, is hardly any better off. How is such a system supposed to work? Where is the incentive to do more diffiicult, stressful work, or to work more hours? What if we all want to work part time in easy low stress jobs? Who are the poor sods who do the full time difficult jobs?

don't talk nonsense woman

do you really think working full time in a difficult job pays the same as part time in an easy low stress job?

if you think that you're bonkers

she gets her CSA for 3 kids

Point of order, that is not a benefit, it is absent parents paying towards their childrens upkeep and is how it should be.

SSD in many cases a person working part time in a low stress job can end up receiving a similar amount in their bank account every month as someone who works long hours in a high stress job, because of income top ups such as tax credits.

Janey is pointing out that as long as that is the case, there is no incentive for anyone to work full time, or in a harder job, because they wont be any better off. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

No- if you read the thread - woman lol- you'll see I've explained that full time stressful jobs dont have the same wages as part time easy jobs, but the top ups in the way of tax credits, free dental treatment, FSM, free prescriptions, etc can mean there is very little or no differential

I gave an example of a friend of mine who chooses to work as a classroom assistant rather than a teacher because she gets enough tops ups and fringe benefits to hardly be any worse off.

At the end of the day, its having the means to pay rent/bills/food/dentists etc which matters to people. It matters not whether those things come by wages or tax credits- its getting them which matters to people

A system which acts as a disincentive to people to work longer hours or in harder jobs is clearly bonkers.

Thanks bogey face- I'm glad you understand my point.
It doesn't make me a Tory (or labour or anything in fact) - its just common sense and logic

One thing I don't get with the cap is who is going to work in Tescos in Kensington (for example)?

So you have someone who earns minimum wage in a very expensive area. At the moment they get a lot of HB because it is expensive to live there. Then it gets cut due to the cap. Presumably they would be better off living somewhere else. So they move. But who does their job?

I just can't quite work it out. Will the salary for minimum wage type jobs in London go up? But if Tescos are paying checkout staff £20 an hour then they are going to want to put the food prices up massively there. And then those doing the traditional minimum wage jobs (and now earning a lot more than minimum wage but only enough to cover their rent) won't be able to afford to shop there. So still won't want to live there.

Or will Tescos etc pull out of expensive areas?

Another point of order.

you only get tax credits if you work more than 16 hours if single or 24 hours if a couple. They even give you additional premiums if you work more hours providing the hours are enough to bump you up a band.

You get child tax credits for doing nothing except having children.

There are affordable council/HA homes in Kensington and central London. People will still live in them and need to work.

I think if there was a cap on housing benefit then rents will have to come down. It is only the huge subsidies that is keeping them artificially high and helping nobody except greedy landlords. I hope there is a cap put in place.

You'd think, Valerie, but sadly it won't necessarily happen - and the people caught at the sharp end can't do anything about it. Affordable homes are in very short supply, people can't raise the deposits for buying or get mortgages, so demand for rental is extremely high. Landlords, especially in places like London, have got the whip hand. If you want to bring down rents, you need to control rents (and build more affordable housing) not punish the working poor and unemployed.

Outraged you know very well that I was commenting on the previous posts regarding working 15 hours getting large tax credits and having no incentive to increase hours.

Life would be so much easier for people like you if they had never changed ctc from income support

You cannot get £381 a week hb for a 1 bed in central London. If you are privately renting then you would receive LHA ad the max you can get per week is £250 for a 1 bed in central London. Only social housing tennants can recieve hb and it wouldn't be £381 a week as social housing is not that expensive. If you go to direct.gov.uk you can get the correct info.