To think that if you will not even look look at this pie chart regarding the welfare spend from last year you have no right to comment?

[MadameDefarge]

THE FACTS

I will now try and find a breakdown of figures of those on long term benefit JSA/IB etc.

Then perhaps we could all have a reasonable discussion.

Littlemisssarcastic,

Would you be able to afford the basics for your child if your childcare costs were £0?

BUT THEY COULD AFFORD THEM IF HOUSING COSTS WERE NOT SO HIGH!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!!!

Sorry for shouting, but I really do not see why you cannot understand that it is not the cOst of raising children that has risen vastly out of proportion with people's earnings.

Why do you keep saying that a group of people who previously could afford children, because wages paid for what they needed to buy, now shouldn't have children because wages no longer pay for everything?

Can you not see see that either wages should rise,or rents fall, or as now, benefits bridge the gap? Why is your answer not to have children?

Your answer is wrong.

My childcare costs are £0 already.

My rent is my largest expense, and increases by 8% every single year.

My HB does not increase by 8% a year.

I cannot afford childcare tbh. Although I would be entitled to 70% of my childcare costs, it is the other 30% I cannot afford on top of everything else.

A CM in my area is £4 an hour. £4 an hour x 45 hours a week is £180.
Extra tax credits would pay 70% of that. (£126)
I would have to pay £54 a week. I simply cannot afford to pay £54 a week.

only skim reading, my DH wage has been frozen for about 4 years, and he took a big salary drop.
inflation and prices have shot above what we used to be able to afford.

there is a global crisis on, a credit crunch , people have been laid off work in vast numbers, nearly everyone is struggling and yet more pressures are brought to bear on those most in need.

whilst I agree there is a small percentage who abuse benefits and feel entitled I feel these people need more support when they are in school to be provided with aspirations and skills and dreams so they would do anything they can to move away from benefits, even then, in today's climate that would be hard.

My answer is not wrong, it is my opinion.

Of course I can see that wages need to rise, but that isn't the point!

Wages are what they are, and people still need to take responsibility for their children.

Personally, I don't think it's ok for a person to look at their own situation, see that they don't have the income to provide for a child, and then choose to have one anyway knowing that they will be able to claim benefits.

Of course it's shite that wages are low, and wages that are ok have not risen with inflation, and housing is expensive, and that so many people can't get on the housing ladder and that the general cost of living is so high, but it is what it is right now. And that means that people who have genuinely fallen on hard times should be supported, but in my mind, it also means that some people simply won't be able to afford children.

it also means that some people simply won't be able to afford children.

This would include virtually everyone on NMW. Therefore wages need to rise, and that is clearly the point!!

Littlemisssarcastic, it is truly shit that you still need child tax credits even without childcare.

I would have thought that free childcare that enabled parents to work full time, and both parents contributing towards a child financially would mean that CTCs were unnecessary.

In an ideal world, it would be lovely not to have to need CTC, but unfortunately, that's the situation at present.

I would also love to see both parents being made to contribute financially towards their children, but I don't think I will see enforcement where necessary of child maintenance payments during my DC's childhood tbh.

I'm sorry, I got my figures wrong. Apparently the govt would pay a maximum of £122.50 for childcare, so by my CM's fees, I would have to pay £57.50 a week, not £54.

That is my cheapest option.

ParsingFancySat 06-Apr-13 22:54:45

Yep, ESA is regularly being described as an "out of work" benefit by ministers and in the media. It's included in the £26K cap and doesn't cause the household to be exempt.

To be clear, it is and out of work benefit, but for being too sick or disabled to work. I've seen people on ESA described as "unemployed", which iiuc goes against international standards, because such people are not available to work in the first place

Parsing i believe the wording was chosen deliberately ESA JSA so that they sound almost indistinguishable from each other especially to people who want to beleive the worst about claimants.

The name certainly carefully avoids any reference to illness or disability, doesn't it, DarkestEyes?

Incapacity Benefit, Invalidity Allowance, Statutory Sick Pay - all give some sort of clue.

Employment and Support Allowance? What that?

It's about employment, right?

Actually, that really is deliberate - I've seen the idealogical literature about restructuring disability benefits. Sickness is a deviation from a societal norm, and sick people should forced to stop seeking the privileged position of being sick (I shit you not) and revert to the norm of being workers. Take up thy bed and walk!

And yet when that thread comparing now to Germany in 1933 was running a few months ago some posters couldnt see the connection. Hitler etc went for the ill and disabled first. Ive seen the old propaganda posters.

Clouds - no, your answer is wrong. Everyone is entitled to hold the 'opinion' that the earth is flat, or that climate change is not happening, but they are wrong.

Political decisions created this situation where wages are low and costs are high. Most particularly housing costs, since the 80s have risen much higher and much faster than in other comparable nations.

These are POLITICAL issues.

Therefore they need POLITICAL solutions.

I have never heard such a weird perspective really. If a nurse or teacher or council officer struggles to make ends meet due o the vast gap between wages and normal living costs, why aren't you up in arms about how messed up that society is?

Where are CTC, WTC and child benefit? (I'm sure there are others that are missing, but those are the ones I'm most familiar with)

Do these come from another "pot"?

In the UK the sign of a good economy is house prices rising each month.
It is always stated on the news as though it is really good, when we all know it is crap.

The money lenders are the only ones who benefit from high house prices. as the higher the price, the more interest is paid.

A few years ago new houses were marketed as 'buy to lets', so many people decided to become landlords.
The high rents charged are supposed to cover the mortgage.

The houses are let with high rents that are often paid with some HB.
If HB wasn't available house rents would be lower, but banks wouldn't make so much money.

The benefits paid out to lower earners benefit the banker wankers.

The gov are deliberately maintaining high house prices. I imagine this is to stop a panic and bunker mentality that would lead to no spending by the population.

I mean if you found out tomorrow that your house was worth half of what you thought, it would have a huge impact on your behaviour. Eg your house which was your nestegg for old age now wouldn't be there or you could be in vast negative equity, or your investment for the future which is your house would be half what it was. The upshot would be no one spending anything as they saved for dear life to keep themselves afloat.

So housing values are slowly falling so mortgages will be smaller and rents will need to drop to compare. But it takes time

ruby there are several more charts links in thread

I mean if you found out tomorrow that your house was worth half of what you thought, it would have a huge impact on your behaviour. Eg your house which was your nestegg for old age now wouldn't be there or you could be in vast negative equity, or your investment for the future which is your house would be half what it was. The upshot would be no one spending anything as they saved for dear life to keep themselves afloat.

I would agree with the negative equity part. Seeing the value of your home drop to less than the outstanding mortgage would reduce spending inclination, I'm sure.

There are, though, a lot of people who own property but would still benefit from a drop. For instance, we're looking to move house (to a more expensive one) and would clearly benefit from any drop in values. We're actually putting off moving in the short term in anticipation of a downward price correction.

Anyone using the property they live in as a nestegg or investment vehicle is clearly deluded.

I want to see good old fashioned, lefty rent controls. It is ridiculous that so much public money is going to private landlords.

It is so odd that rising house prices are seen as a sign of a booming economy.
Rising food, car, fuel, clothes, shoes, and any other prices are not a sign of a booming economy.
A lot of landlords were sucked into the buy to let market with the promise of 'this can be your pension'. The house you buy now will be worth double in 10 years time.

Hmmmm.

Mrs Thatcher gave us 'the right to buy'.
Mad woman.

So 22% goes to support those on low income / unemployed which could be a major national saving if halved

Our welfare state promised pensions and we have a duty to fulfil them to those that were promised. Pensioners are hardly living well off the money they now receive. You may have noticed that the whole pensions market has now changed so this is a finite state. You don't change the deal when it is too late for those now receiving pension payments to make any change.

There is no such thing as free childcare. What I mean is the money would have to come from somewhere. Like higher taxes. I think we have to get away from this concept of 'free'. There is no free.

Do those advocating making the state pension means tested really think that's a good idea?

Even for people earning a reasonable amount there's a fine line between paying into a private pension in the hope of having a little extra in old-age and not bothering.

If your private fund gives you £250 per month and a £20,000 lump sum at retirement (which is not a bad pension at all by modern standards) you're no better off (in terms of income) than if you didn't actually bother to save anything.

Not only have you sacrficed income during your working years to fund it, you would also lose out on the £60+ per week in pension credit and CTB which a single person on state pension only would receive.

The message that gives is to spend what you earn rather than saving some of it. That's a very bad thing for the future of our economy.

Advocating means testing of the basic state pension will simply ensure that even more people don't bother to save anything for their retirement.