To think that tax credits and the like actually seem quite generous?

[MaliceInWonderland78]

My wife has recently given birth to DC3. She is currently on maternity leave. She works 30 hours a week for 19k per annum. Having checked things out on "entitled to.co.uk" it seems, were I to croak it, or do a runner, she'd be entitled to universal credit of approximately 200 per week. I'm not sure if this is correct though (it seems quite high).

If that is the case, how on earth are people needing food banks? I don't mean it to be patronising, I was just shocked that the figure was this high. As a tax payer, I'm hoping this is wrong. My calulations are as follows:

Wages - 300
Universal Credit - 200
Child benefit - 44

In addition to this, the council tax bill would be reduced from 160 pcm to approximately 45.

Is this peoples' real-world experience?

Did you tick SMP and/or widow? I can't see how that amount would arise unless it's user error. I'm sure the reality isn't as much as you'd think.

Why did you search just for your wifes income anyway?

Sounds about right, it goes up quite a bit for dc3. Bills, mortgage, food. All expensive, as are dc the older they get.

Food banks are there because if you died tomorrow, had no savings and your wife didnt have a job ir any support network she would struggle to pay for everything while they take an age to sort everything out (ime it can take months)

Same if she wasnt working abd you up and left without giving her a penny. Not everyone works, has family support or an exp willing to help out while people wait for benefits to be sorted.

That's terible Coffee I always thought I was against mean-testing, but it seems I might not be.

On 18k with 3 dc we got 180 a week, although im not sure how much it changes for sp rate

Many people using foodbanks have been sanctioned, so aren't getting benefits or not the full amount, have had their benefits messed up so haven't got them, or are single and hit a crisis e.g, partner who was earning walks out taking money with them. Foodbanks are short term only, you can't go back week after week.

However if you are married sge would be entitled to widdowed mothers allowence, which was means tested on how much tax you payed iirc from when my mum got it for dsis.

as a single mum to 3 dc I get the following (roughly)

895 wages 20 hours a week (monthly)
216 child and working tax credit (weekly)
180 child benefit (4 weekly)
360 housing benefit (4 weekly)

it does seem very generous escpecially considering i dont pay any childcare costs but the fact is, it does not go far.

rent is 800
cost of running a car etc etc etc . dont even get me started on the food bills wuth a teenage boy in the house!

We entered the details on the system as if I was not living there. My earnings are such that we do not get any benefit. It seemed to disregard maintenace I'd pay for the kids in any event.

I should be clear. I don't wish to see anyone on the breadline, or make light of the struggles which people face, it's just that it seemed - on the face of it - that it's very generous.

I don't understand why anyone would have issues with food banks anyway to be honest. The food is donated and they are usually run by volunteers. What's not to like? I can't see anyone wanting to get food from a food bank unless they are genuinely in need and they usually have to be assessed to get a voucher to even get some food - that's the case here anyway. It's usually only 3 days worth of food and it's not a continuous agreement.

Food banks are amazing. It's just so sad we even need them. No one should be hungry.

Same reason people think social hosing tenants don't pay any rent, it's a 'free' house, if you need a food bank you are a feckless scrounger who has Sky and smoke and drink, etc.

Probably rainbow.

It comes back to the old thing that the richer never understand the poorer. If you're reasonably well off and are stuck without money for a few weeks you can normally access a way to borrow money fairly cheaply - savings, credit card, overdraft even. If you are poor and they stop your benefits for what is often no fault of your own you may not have any access to money. Nothing. No one wants to lend to someone on benefits and even budgeting loans etc are becoming harder to get nowadays. And then it's either starve or pay day lenders - and it is happens more than once you are in a spiral of debt. It goes on and on.

But the richer people would still believe it's always a choice to be poor... they should get a better job, go back to university, retrain, relocate, eat less (!), stop having any form of entertainment whatsoever because apart from living and breathing you stop having that right to enjoy life.

It makes me so bloody angry. And I've even been that poor. But I know those who have and the prejudice and ignorance they experience is awful.

Do you work for the Daily Fail Op?

*never even.

No I don't. I didn't mean the initial post to sound quite as bad as it does. I did say that I've likely made a mistate (which is why I posed the question in the first instance) it just seemed quite a decent amount of money, that's all.

I don't consider myself to be either rich or poor. But I'm guessing we've spent most of our lives at the poorer end of the spectrum.

Many people do not have friends or family they can borrow money or food from if they hit a crisis. My parents could give me food if things were desperate. But if you have no one who can help, then you need foodbanks.

I agree. I'm not against food banks. I'm sure they've been misused by a minority, but as a society, I'd sooner have them than not (or course I'd sooner we didn't need them at all!)

Fairylea

It comes back to the old thing that the richer never understand the poorer. If you're reasonably well off and are stuck without money for a few weeks you can normally access a way to borrow money fairly cheaply - savings, credit card, overdraft even...But the richer people would still believe it's always a choice to be poor... they should get a better job, go back to university, retrain, relocate, eat less (!), stop having any form of entertainment whatsoever because apart from living and breathing you stop having that right to enjoy life

Completely agree with this.

I don't think Cameron et al are deliberately or knowingly evil. I just think if you have never expereinced that stomach churning fear that poverty brings then you just can't appreciate how awful this rhetoric about "hard working families" is. The whole reducing consultation periods for redundancy and all but scrapping legal aid will never ever impact on them. But it will impact on Bob who works in a call centre for a national company who decide to move the operation abroad. It'll impact on Kate who has been forced out of her job for raising concerns about dubious practices.

I've pulled myself out of what I was born into, but I was blessed with a good brain and a poor but supportive family. I realise how lucky I've been. What if I hadn't been bright at school? What if my parents had pressured me to go into fulltime employment at 16?

The lack of choices and aspirations associated with being poor can never be understood unless you've been there.

I think that there are particular combinations and circumstances which work out favourably for some, while others are left to struggle. It is the unintended consequence of an overly-complicated system.

Take avaya (who posted above) as an example. If the figures she's posted are true, then to earn in full her current income (disregarding child benefit, which everyone earning £50,000 or less receives), she'd need a salary which paid £35,000 (post-tax £2,229 per month/£26,754 per year), instead of the £10,740 she currently earns. Yet others on this thread have posted of earned net income lower than £26,000 (which is the sum the government have apparently calculated that avaya needs) who receive no kind of top-up or additional tax credits, etc. It is very odd.

I don't consider myself to be either rich or poor. But I'm guessing we've spent most of our lives at the poorer end of the spectrum.

Well that depends on what you consider the poorer end of the spectrum. The average UK salary is £26500 so if you and you wife earn an average of above that figure you are not the poorer end of the spectrum, you are the wealthier end of the spectrum.
The poorer end of the spectrum is people on national minimum wage with no earning partner.
Those at the very bottom end of the spectrum are those on benefits without children. JSA is only £72.50 a week for a single person.
When you considered yourself to be at the poorer end of the spectrum where did you fit into those figures (taking inflation into account)?

The welfare system is generous: I don't know anybody outside of Mumsnet who doesn't think it is generous to be honest.

horse have you tried living off the equivalent of JSA. £72.50 each week to cover gas, electric, water, food, travel expenses (often to mandatory interviews and job centre appointments). Some JSA claimants also have to pay towards rent and council tax out of the £72.50 too.

In my experience it's only those who have had the fortune to manage without benefits that would ever call them "generous".

Miss I'm defninitely not at the poorer end of the spectrum now, but have been in the past. Certainly for just over half my life. To me "at the poorer end" means below the national average.

I don't think they're genreally 'generous' but having seen the results of the calculator (and if they're to be believed - which was sort of the point of the original query) I no longer walk down the stairs in front of my wife!