to think its an awful thing that 80% of working age benefits go to people in work

[medona]

Constantly people, like O'Brien on LBC, tot this out as if its a good thing.

In what world is it ever good that workers are not paid enough to live on so tax payers have to top up their income?

Family Income Support was introduced by Heath's Conservative Government. It was replaced by Family Credit under Thatcher's Government.

This was, in turn, replaced by Working Family Tax Credit in 1999 by Blair's Government and the by Working Tax Credit in 2003.

Universal Credit is replacing WTC - that's under the Coalition Government.

So all the main 3 parties have had working family benefits in one form or another since the early 70s.

Yanbu

It's subsidising The Man

No idea how to sort it - but if people in full time work need benefits to bring themnoutnofnpoverry there's something wrong. Even renaming the subsidy and paying it to the companies (God sounds awful) so that low paid workers get heir money from salary might change perceptions

Well I'm not sure employers need to assume people have children. Surely they employ the person not the family.

A NMW at 40 hrs a week is £1,023 take home outside of London. Not loads but enough if you can house share.

Ptole I agree in part but it's not that simple either.

Tax credits do encourage people to work more hours, there's a 16 hour element and a 30 hour element. Tax credits are actually higher if you work more than 30 hours thus encouraging more work.

The idea of also giving tax credits for working 16 hours is so that someone can still take a part time job if that's all that's available. I guess it also makes sense if a newly single parent is going back to work with a baby and struggling to cope or find childcare. Surely working 16-20 hours is better than nothing?

It was abused though by some deliberately working the minimum. Not true about being just as well off though, tax credits means you're ALWAYS better off working more hours.

In terms of the bedroom tax, it sounds fair in theory. But for example I saw a documentary and there was a single woman with a boy and girl aged 8 & 9. She worked by the way. She was suffering from racial abuse where she lived. Petrol bombs through her letterbox. She found a 3 bed house but wasn't allowed to move there as her boy and girl were under 10 so could share a bedroom. However only for another year or so. Bear on mind she needed to find a property near school and work it just didn't make any sense.

Agree with Pyjamaramadrama.

I remember what it was like pre 1997. I remember both DH and I being paid a pittance (both £8 k), private rentals not as widely available as now, so we bought a fairly cheap house (£45k) and struggling to pay the mortgage. I remember having a baby and going out to work (illegally) in a pub at night for cash in hand when he was 4 wks old. I remember paying out nearly as much for childcare as I was earning. And I remember the massive overdraft and the fear of opening bills.

Tax credits improved our lot immensely. I'll always be grateful for them. We wouldn't be in the very fortunate position we are in now without them.

I can't pretend to know what the answer is and obviously it's not a perfect situation now but there's no way I'd want to go back to pre 1997 when there was absolutely no help for those on a low wage.

Revealall the point is though that this would mean that only better off people could ever start a family.

Some people will never earn enough because of their own limitations. Nothing to do with aspiration just purely their capabilities. So a bin man and a cleaner could never start a family with today's cost of living.

Then there are single parents, if you're the sole earner even earning well above nmw you'd need top ups.

The problem is that as soon as you have children you are deemed to need £££s more than someone who doesn't. No children - then work your arse off in full time employment. Have kids?...then don't bother working full time because you'll get your wages topped up with working tax credits, child tax credits, housing benefit etc. The benefits system is not fair and people should only have children if they can afford to without relying on top ups. Parents seem to get a disproportionate amount of benefit compared to how much it actually costs to bring up a child.

A lot of people did cash in hand /illegal work before tax credits as they are now. A lot if people especially single parents just couldn't afford to work either.

People might not like the handouts but you have to remember if you improve a families life and lift them above the breadline, their children are more likely to do better and so it goes on.

Yes rich petunia because people only have children for the benefits don't they?

As I said without top ups you're average supermarket worker would never afford a family.

I'd hate to live in a society again where only the well off could have children and the rest are left to rot.

"Parents seem to get a disproportionate amount of benefit compared to how much it actually costs to bring up a child."

£227k to raise a child to post university status.

Before Tax credits there was a lot more poverty. I remember having two small children before they came in and we had to count every penny, on about 12k we really had nothing. When the tax credits came in we went from getting about £4 per month to several hundred per month, several thousand per year. Food banks were needed much more then but it wasn't as fashionable to start them.

Most of my tax credits went on childcare costs. It cost £140 a week to put a baby in nursery and it costs £67 a week for breakfast and after school clubs. Lifting me out of tax wouldn't have helped me to pay that.

A lot of people who've never claimed have no real idea or understanding about in work benefits. Like the myth that everyone's better off part time. It's simply not true. Yes some people have opted to work part time and in some cases it is wrong. But if a 20 hour job is all that's available better to take that than nothing.

I wish that I had all the answers and solutions but the fact is that people will always have children. People always have, back before the nhs when people were living in back to back houses with no heating or hot water, it doesn't matter how difficult you make a families life people will always continue to have children. Back in the days of workhpuses people still did. Even if we removed the welfare state completely people would still have children.

The nmw isn't going to go up that much, living costs aren't going to come down enough.

At least with tax credits they rewarded work, enabled people to be able to afford to work. Wherever there's a service it will be open to abuse and people will find loopholes.

People abuse the nhs, the abuse the education system. It's like giving employers sick pay, there'll be a few bad eggs who take the piss. Rich people abuse things too, look at the mps and their expenses.

It doesn't mean to say we should remove everything which is their to help people.

The "bedroom tax" is a completely seperate thing to the allocation of property though.
Property is allocated on need by the local authority.

Bedroom tax means that housing benefit is only paid on the rooms deemed as needed in council and HA properties. The rent of a property doesn't change though. A £500pm house is still that. If you are paying rent yourself you can be in it on your own or with a massive family. The problem is if you rely on housing benefit for the entire property - it only pays for what you need. However since the rents are compatibly cheap it effectively means that if you can find an extra £20 a week you buy yourself an extra bedroom.
You can also swap properties all over the country with other tenants so if you can't afford it you can swap to somewhere smaller without going back on the housing registrar.

Reveal all it does have to do with allocation of property though.

Because of the bedroom tax local authorities and housing associations won't put people in properties where they are under occupying.

In the example I am talking about the lady had bid on the property but then she wasn't allowed the tenancy as she'd be under occupying.

She'd have been willing to pay the difference anyway but LA have change their rules I suppose to stop rent arrears.

Nope they wouldn't have put put them in a property they where under occupying anyway. They never have done with the exception of being on a temporary lease in extend circumstances.. Why would you put families in a property they aren't entitled to?

And as I said once the family have got an assured tenancy in the property they can look around for swap. Lots of people are only willing to downsize because of the bedroom tax - why would you move to a smaller property if you didn't need too? Meaning the family in your example can have extra rooms.

There are new rules around the bedroom tax, one being that a boy and girl can share up until the age of 10. These children were 8 and 9, so it was daft that she couldn't move in. They'd have needed their own rooms in one year.

That was my point.

The point is the lady needed to move because of harassment, she found a property but then couldn't move in because she'd be under occupying. Pre bedroom tax that rule didn't apply.

There are other problems with the bedroom tax too, such as couples where one has a severe disability and needs their own bedroom. Separated couples where one has non resident children staying. Foster carers, it doesn't allow for foster children.

Of course that ruled applied before! It's been the case since I worked in housing back in the 1990's .Bedroom tax had nothing to do with it.

Besides if the government really cared about housing they'd just say no under occupying.

Where I live everyone is under occupying. There's couples with no children, single people in 3 bed homes, a lady with adult children who are literally never there. But they all work full time and aren't entitled to housing benefit. None of them will move as they've all lived there years and they can afford the rent.

On the other hand why should they move? Surely if you're anti benefits moving these 'hardworking taxpayers' into smaller accommodation to make space for someone having lots of children on benefits doesn't make sense does it?

The truth is the so called bedroom tax was only brought in to demonise poor people.

'Lots of the benefits are paid to part time workers though.'

Lots are paid to people on zero hours contracts, temp/agency workers. Let's get real here.

You are still muddling the two issues in your last post. Foster carers can have extra rooms just so long as they pay for them...and fostering pays doesn't it.

They may not be allocated a HA/council house with an extra room on the basis that they may foster in the future. But they can exchange to a bigger property once they are in the system.

If you worked in housing then you'd know that LAs and HAs have changed the way they allocated properties since the bedroom tax.

I'm not muddling any issue, I'm simply pointing out several problems with the bedroom tax.

There are many reasons why people claim housing benefit meaning that they cannot afford to pay all if their rent. Many of these people do in fact need an additional bedroom.

And homes are allocated differently now that is a fact, meaning many people just aren't given tenancies that they would have been before.