to be pissed off that they seem to have lots more disposable cash than me?

[JRmumma]

Just to be clear, in not 'benefits bashing' but a friend of mine who chose not to return to work after DC3 as she worked out that tax credits and housing benefit would make her family 'no worse off', seems to have lots more money than me.

To explain my situation, i have 1DC and am on mat leave at present. When i go back to work, we will have less money than we do at the moment after work travel costs and childcare is paid for. I have to go back full time to enable us to survive even though i didn't want to, but accept that children are expensive and needs must. We are also having to seriously cut back on the few luxuries that we currently have (memberships/subscriptions).

Ive just discovered that my friend has just booked her second holiday for this year. Without saying where it is for fear of outing myself, its a v expensive holiday for her and hubby. The other holiday is a European all inclusive jobby for the whole family. All 3 DC also had expensive electronics for Xmas.

This really fucks me off. Where am i going wrong? If they have enough money for exotic holidays and all the latest mod cons, why are they receiving tax credits and housing benefit? And why oh why will the only holiday i get this year be a £9.50 sun holiday if both me and DH work full time and claim nothing?

The source of the money is not irrelevant at all.

That's like saying it's ok for me to take the thanks for buying the gift that my grandma has given me to pass on to my children.

If I'm the one that hands the gift over, does that make it a gift from me, or is it still a gift from great granny?

A foreign holiday costs more than £400 when you factor in passports etc. if someone can manage to save up enough for a whole family to go on a foreign holiday in two years, then there is a fair argument to say that benefits are too generous.

'if someone can manage to save up enough for a whole family to go on a foreign holiday in two years, then there is a fair argument to say that benefits are too generous.'

Why?

Why can't people on benefits have holidays?

I wouldn't describe someone who can decide to prioritise spending on a holiday as 'helpless and miserable'. Unless they're whacking it on a credit card, in which case they are compounding their own misery and don't really deserve sympathy.

Seriously, we're back to the "deserving poor" already? God how depressingly familiar.

I think there is an element of some people being more deserving of state help then others. A person who cannot physically work due to disability undoubtedly deserves help beyond a very basic standard of living. Carers who are unable to work due to their caring responsibilities deserve financial help (certainly much more than the current measly amount which doesn't even entitle them to free dental and optical care and is less than unemployment benefits). The amount that carers save the govt is astounding and yet they receive less than JSA as their 'salary'.
Somebody who has worked for 20 years and been made redundant deserves help until he can get back on his feet.
People who have been unemployed and on unemployment benefits for 20 years without illness, caring commitments or other genuine reason are not as deserving IMO.
I think everyone should be guaranteed a minimum basic standard of living, but I so feel that some people are more deserving than others.
The family that the OP is referring to are not an unemployed family, the husband has a job and a percentage of the family's income is earned by him. If the wife went to work in a low paid role the amount paid in benefits might be more than they are currently receiving due to help with childcare costs. I have no problems with one person staying home to look after small children even if they need some financial help for a while as the net cost to the central coffers might be no different than if they claimed childcare help.

It's nothing like you taking the thanks for buying a gift that your grandma has given you to pass on to your children. How absurd!

Firstly, in your scenario, you are lying if you don't correct the person that it was not you who bought the gift.

Secondly, you have been entrusted to pass on the gift from the grandma - you are merely a proxy gift-giver.

Thirdly, it was never yours to give, so it isn't a gift from you.

In the scenario above, Fred and Francis have been given some money in benefits. At that point it is theirs to spend however they deem fit. They choose to save it.

How do you know that they didn't already have passports, from a time when life was kinder to them? They may both have been in good jobs then made redundant, but because they have a good work ethic, took low paying jobs rather than living on benefits.

They may be saving some of the money they earn. Why does it stop being theirs to spend as they see fit because they also receive some benefits?

Benefits are too generous if they allow someone to save £400 over two years?! I've heard it all now

That's only £3.84 per week!

A foreign holiday costs more than £400 when you factor in passports etc. if someone can manage to save up enough for a whole family to go on a foreign holiday in two years, then there is a fair argument to say that benefits are too generous.

Not really. Just because they are on benefits doesn't mean they've ALWAYS been on benefits. I'm on benefits, yet I have a passport that I got a few years ago. Maybe they're visiting friends or family that live in a foreign country, so don't have to pay for a food or hotel or transport while they're there. You just never know.

I think once the money is received by the person, then they can spend it how they feel best. You have no right to tell them they can't have a holiday if they are exceedingly careful enough to save money and have one.

That's lovely. Have you been on benefits? Have you any idea how miserable it can be, holiday or not?

Are these happy benefit people allowed to run cars?

Are they allowed to have home insurance?

Life insurance?

AA membership?

Are they allowed to visit sick relatives?

Are they allowed to have a cup of coffee on the way to job interviews?

Are they allowed to buy a more comfortable wheelchair that doesn't give bedsores to their child?

Are they allowed to have Christmas, their heating up higher when breastfeeding at night, their shower fixed when it breaks?

Are they allowed to have their locks changed after a burglary, to get a cab when the last bus doesn't show, buy teething powders for their baby?

Are they allowed to attend funerals, buy in bulk at discounted prices, buy trainers to try and get fit, access the internet?

Are they allowed to build a shed for their child to have some space to revise for their GCSE so they aren't disturbed by the 3 younger children that share their bedroom?

Are any of these technically necessary to survive? Are they necessary to increase the chances of participating in society in the future? Are they necessary to help avoid mental illness? Are they necessary to help avoid general illness?

It's human nature, though, isn't it Mrsdevere? I think all of us do it to a greater or lesser extent. I agree it's not conducive to happiness though.

Where are these holidays for at least two people that only cost £400 all in? I'd be well up for some of that, so I'd love to know.

Lounge, maybe my example wasn't the best, but you are kidding yourself if you think paying vat out of money that other people have worked for makes someone a taxpayer. It just doesn't.

Just stop comparing yourself! Lots of people have to cut back when they have kids. Others spend money on stuff they can't afford. Focus on your own life rather than looking at what they're spending money on. It's unhealthy. Having said that, if anyone talked about money constantly while around me or on Facebook, I'd be seeing them less often/hiding their updates - that's unhealthy too.

How exactly are they doing that OP?

With three kids the childcare costs (Even if some of them are in school, at least some of the time) make returning to anything other than a reasonably well paid job uneconomic. This is pretty crap for your friend and her own future job prospects, economic sustainability and independence, long term. Have you looked into your own possible benefit/tax credit entitlements, properly, by the way?

You have no idea how your friend manages to pay for these things, what they go without, what they are given, how much they borrow. Seemingly they are either a bit reckless with credit, or extremely canny. I can pretty much guarantee that their benefits are not sufficient to pay for posh holidays abroad, new cars etc

Anyway I expect you will continue to miss the point - the problem here is low wages and high living costs.

They're allowed to do whatever they want with their money. And like most people, will have to buy some things and forgo others. I was merely pointing out that someone who can afford a foreign holiday has choices and so it would be laying it on a bit thick to describe them as helpless.

Anyway, this is moot because most people on benefits clearly can't afford foreign holidays.

'It's human nature, though, isn't it Mrsdevere? I think all of us do it to a greater or lesser extent. I agree it's not conducive to happiness though'

I really don't think it is.

I think it is propaganda!

Everyone has choices.

But some people have a lot less choice than others through no fault of their own.

What can you earn up to to be entitled to tax credits?

I don't know about tax credits, but your earnings have to be quite low to get help with HB.

My MN name is lougle but I'll take it you're referring to me.

Ok. So you are saying that someone who works 29 hours per week at NMW (£182.99) and pays tax (£0.29 per week) is more deserving of their benefits than the person who works 28 hours per week at NMW (£176.68) and doesn't pay tax?

What about the person who works just 10 hours per week, but gets paid £18.30 per hour? They pay tax (£0.29 per week) Are they more deserving, as a tax payer, than the ones that work 28 hours at NMW but don't pay tax?

A friend of mine is on benefits. Her children's grandmother paid for them to go with their extended family to a foreign holiday, so she could take the DCs. She already had passports for them all from when she was with her partner and in a better financial position. I'm sure some people questioned how she could "afford" it, but it's really not their business.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the price of an all inclusive week in Benidorm in late July at jet2holidays.com, which we usually use as they seem to be good value.

The cheapest available is Two Thousand Pounds for a week in a 2 star hotel for a family of 4! OK with AI you wouldn't need much spending money, but would still need to be able to save up nearly £200 pm to afford it.

However, I can't imagine a family being able to go abroad for much less unless they camp or self cater and cook rather than eating out.

Creamy at the moment, there is an allowance per child, so the more children you have, the higher the threshold at which tax credits is withdrawn.

So if you had 10 children, currently, you would start with around £30k in tax credits before deductions are made for income.

The Government are thinking of changing this, so that any children a family has after the first two, are not counted.

What is the amount you can earn to get housing benefit?

I don't know if L outlet was asking me, but: I Think if people are working then they deserve top up benefits if their wages are low. Full time work isn't that easy to get for a lot of people and certain benefits you can only get if earning over 16 hours per week (or 24 if part of a couple). I don't begrudge any working people top up benefits.