to think that 20 grand on benefits a year is loads

[MrsBucketxx]

considering they dont pay any income tax.

just watching we pay your benefits program and worked out that this is over 30 grand if it was a normal tax paying salary.

why was this not mentioned.

I think some are in need but others have made their situations more problematic and not been prudent. of course we want people to be supported but what about helping yourself.

People can't afford child care now - how the fuck are they supposed to find it and pay for it 7 days a week?

And a lot of jobs ask you to keep yourself available "just in case" those extra hours do crop up.
So in those cases the employee cant even do the extra hours in a second job if he/she has to keep themselves available at all hours to the first employer.

And god forbid that the children might actually want to SEE their parents occasionally and even spend TIME with them.

Dont be silly Trigs They want the term "latchkey kids" to be used again because thats something else you they can blame on the poor.

Gaslighting isnt just something that happens in abusive relationships. Right wing politicians and their voters use this tactic all the time.

Half brained idea here - may not work when you think through it but here goes...
How about people on benefits only get the equivalent to the highest salary they earned, with a cap if over £50k for example?
That way people have to get a job straight after school or they don't get anything and if they quit after a year they presumably are on minimum wage?
Disabilities from birth and teen pregnancies would have to be thought about, but illness an adult disabilities should be fairer?

how about people that need benefits are given support based on what they need to live, rather than what they've contributed or earned previously?

I hate that people are so hung up on others getting benefits that haven't contributed "enough".

How about people on benefits only get the equivalent to the highest salary they earned, with a cap if over £50k for example?

Nuts. just nuts.

In some of the countries that are often cited on MN as good in terms of benefit culture and supporting poorer groups (Sweden, Finland), that's precisely what they do do- it is linked to previous higher earnings, as is maternity pay, with a baseline.

Ah, so it isn't my brain child then Mumsy haha.
If they are able to work then surely they should if they choose to leave school and not go to college or take further ed though Trigglesx?
I'm not on about contribution, I just want everyone able to have at least TRIED work, just once!

People here are going on about those receiving benefits getting £70 a week, saying it's more than enough to live on, and you think they'll be fine with them getting more, because they perhaps had a previous higher earning?

You're either very naïve or you've got a lot more faith in people than I have.

They have to actually be able to secure a job to try work, you know. Just pointing it out. It's not always easy.

My parents' baby-boomer neighbour had her children young, was a SAHM and continued to stay at home until she was of pension age. She was genuinely astounded when she rang up to ask where her pension was when she turned sixty. She honestly thought that because her DH worked that she would get a full state pension. Entitlement is not a new thing.

I happen to think the numbers would probably drop and therefore it would be a bit of a non-issue Trigglesx but without trailing it we will never know if that would be the case. Unless we look at the figures from Sweden/Finland, perhaps?

But why is that idea nuts Triggles. People who have contributed into system for years and then get made redundant, should be entitled to more than those who have never worked a day in their lives.

The working contributors are more likely to have a mortgage, so if they could get something close to their previous salary, for up to 2 years, say, then they have a much better chance of hanging on to their mortgaged property, which they are currently not entitled to assistance with, for 9? months, when it is usually too late (repossion etc).

This would be more in keeping with the idea that benefits should be a safety net, rather than a lifestyle choice.

I don't know why many mumsnetters cannot ever except the idea that there are many many families out there that are choosing to work very part time hours, or not at all, and receive benefits or tax credits that are much higher than they could ever earn by working full time hours.

I know personally several families with 5 or more children in my immediate/extended family, or friends of friends etc, who do exactly this and those of us who work full time for similar amounts of money are getting slightly fed up of it now.

And they are doing this for decades not just in the short term. What happens when these children become adults? What happens when these adults who have never worked a day in their lives become pensioners? Because we won't be able to say 'but they have worked hard all their lives' then, will we?

JakeBullet, I agree with you that society is responsible for those who are least able to fend for themselves.

But I wasn't responding to someone who is unable to fend for themselves. I was responding to someone who openly admitted that she could have chosen to work but didn't, because she wanted to live off tax credits.

My dh has always worked and I haven't, because the tax credits he is entitled to have enabled me to be a sahm. I could have worked but I chose not to.

As a society, I don't think we are responsible for providing that kind of life choice for people, and I genuinely find it shocking that anyone could possibly think it's ok to make that choice.

£70 isn't more than enough to live on. I know my sister really struggles with this. I am sure she would love to receive her max weekly wage for 2 years. Instead of 6 months contribution based and than nothing until almost all her redundancy payments run out.

clouds.

You are quoting my post there. So I shall respond.
Yes I could have gone out to work, but the cost of child care was more than I could earn. I wasn't prepared to work for nothing. My dh was offered Family Credit just like millions of others and took it. Because we were/are prudent with our money HIS Tax credits have enabled me to be a sahm.
So, I think I made the right decision there somehow.

You made the right decision for you at the expense of other people's taxes.

I see something wrong with that. You clearly don't.

I don't blame you for making that choice. If you have no interest in having a job or a career then why wouldn't you take the easy option? Some people work for more than just money, but even if you dislike work so much that you are only working for money, you certainly wouldn't have been working for nothing.

Clouds.

We will have to agree to differ then.
I am not interested in a job or career, I did that before having dc.
I was a hr tax payer for years.
Money isn't everything and neither is a career. For some people their family situation means it is better that they don't work.

Do you see how very lucky you are to have that choice provided for you in the form of tax credits?

Ah, I wondered why all of my partnered friends are rushing to get married and one said just that - she can use his tax credits and they will be better off than when she was working. They have 2 kids and childcare costs are high.
FFS though as a single mum it is quite grating just how easy it seems to get money out of the system for everyone but us!

Yes but if all your wage goes on child care there is nothing left to pay the bills. Without child care you have the money to pay bills. if you are low income family WTC and TC help to pay the bills.
Its not rocket science.