Low salaries not actually low?

[highchairhell]

I'm probably being unreasonable here but it really frustrates me when people say 'we manage on a salary of £24k' etc but conveniently forget to mention the tax credits, child benefit, subsidised school lunches etc that bumps the salary up considerably.
On threads where someone says they struggle earning £50k there are always posters who are incredulous and outraged that people aren't living like kings on that but fail to realise that there would be little to no help for families on that wage whereas the lower wages are propped up with tax free benefits and housing pay that means they have more disposable income than the on paper huger earners!

Happypuppy

[Got it in one chocolate, the government would be paying either way. For the four children you chose to have, “living within your means”. Nobody wants children to go without but something needs to drastically change, it’s not just you, don’t take it personally.
Anyway, lunch break over.]

What needs to drastically change is attitudes like yours. Many large families are totally self reliant until something changes like divorce, death , disability.

This government has people believing that the country is full of women who choose to have as many children as they wish and are bailed out by the government.

More people choose not to look behind the headlines and propaganda or at the rise in child poverty and declare they will live on dust rather than claim benefits and that somehow makes them more worthy.

Even your sign off is PA.

I am a single mother with 2 pre-school aged children in outer London. My personal equilibrium point for work vs benefits for 17/18 was around £78K. I am lucky to earn more, but often second-guess my life choices.

My friend works for a top solicitor in London. She bikes to work (they have showers and a gym at the office, so most people do), shops at anywhere between New Look and River Island. One expensive suit, but still only a one off expense really.

Her only lifestyle expenditure that comes with her job really is the obscenely expensive small flat she can afford because of it. If someone is on a 70k salary, they only need to buy 2x 2k suits!

I think people have a lot of illusions about high paid jobs that generally stem from being ignorant of them entirely.

I'm self-employed so earnings are very variable. Last year was exceptionally bad and I only managed £12K, and I'm entitled to diddly squat. I'm good at managing but it was a bloody struggle paying for unexpected things like car repairs.

DH earns around £1000 a month. Sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. We get a whopping £350 universal credit top up as I stay at home with our son.
I agree that 24k is loads. We get less than £16k even with the help!

If you live in England, all state funded school children from reception to year 2 receive free school dinner, primary 1 to 3 in Scotland. This is state funded and an automatic entitlement regardless of income. Wales and Northern Ireland school dinners are income assessed and has to be receiving a certain benefit.

Our combined household income is £30K and we get no benefits, subsidised school lunches or 'government help/aid'. No one I know on similar salary does. Where is the evidence that they do?

Fucking hell, what is it with posters like Happypuppy who can talk about working 60 hours a week and still going without food as though that's perfectly acceptable and somehow demonstrates their strength of character ?

It seems to be bloody constant on here; necessity tarted up as virtue, posters who realm off lists of perfectly normal things as luxuries, insisting that spending hours every week schlepping around charity shops or going to multiple supermarkets just before closing to rifle through the reduced shelf (on shanks mare of course - no one needs a car, a bike, public transport) is perfectly fine, no big deal at all, nothing to complain about . Yeah right!

Barely scraping a living, having to watch every single penny always, your existence reduced to your own four walls or wherever you can get on foot (the "no one needs to meet friends, eat a slice of cake in a cafe, see a film at the cinema" bollox) is not a good thing, there's no fucking moral superiority to being poor and it is a big deal!

I swear it's like a really grim competition on here sometimes ...

Family A: £50k/year works out as £33,494 after tax, student loan repayments and 5% pension contribution. They also qualify for £3,523 housing benefits (in London) and £2,501 child benefit.

So their total net annual income is £39,518.

Family B: £15k/year works out as £13,650 after tax. They also get the following benefits from the government, all tax free:

£10,073 in tax credits (child tax credit and working tax credit)

£12,120 in housing benefit

£2,501 child benefit

So their total net annual income is: £38,344

If you live in England, all state funded school children from reception to year 2 receive free school dinner Yes Pie, but not everyone has children under this age!

@MyRelationshipIsWeird, well no, obviously. I was replying to the PP who said they thought these ages received free meals and someone replied that they didn't.

conveniently forget to mention the tax credits, child benefit, subsidised school lunches etc that bumps the salary up considerably.

Haahaahaa! Really can't get past this and it shows such supreme ignorance. You don't get a raft of benefits on 24k. Bullshit!

I don't know about how the top up benefits system works, but I do know that there's a huge difference between a £200 and £1000 suit and it's pretty obvious after about 5 seconds observation

I'm on £26k a year and my partners on £28k we don't qualify for any benefits at all. I'm currently on maternity leave but when I go back to work we'll have child care of around £900 a month to pay, plus mortgage and bills.

there's a huge difference between a £200 and £1000 suit and it's pretty obvious after about 5 seconds observation

I'm all for dressing appropriately for work but anyone who considers this important enough in the workplace to even bother observing it is a bit of a knob imo.

t (the "no one needs to meet friends, eat a slice of cake in a cafe, see a film at the cinema" bollox)

Yes and then people wonder why those places go bust.............because no one is spending any money in them.

Completely agree. And the only difference between an M&S suit and a Paul Smith suit is the label in the back and the price tag. An off the peg suit is an off the peg suit, they're often made in the same factory.

I'm a single person on £13000 a year but have a mortgage - just did my entitlements as if I had a three yr old and I'd get an extra £70 a week and the 25% council tax discount I already receive. And 15 hrs free childcare that everyone gets. Sooooo that would stay pretty low.

Lurker - where do you get family on £50k gets housing benefits

there's a huge difference between a £200 and £1000 suit and it's pretty obvious after about 5 seconds observation

I've never spent more than £200 on a suit.

If a law firm wanted me to wear one, they can pay me accordingly. Oh wait - they probably did, back in the day, except that I had mortgage and nursery fees to pay. The only thing I'd say is I noticed if men wore shirts with cuff links - but a couple of pairs of cuff links don't cost much.

Fortunately now I work from home most of the time and can wear jeans in the office.

I do wish people would just leave benefit claimants alone. In the grand scheme of things its a fraction of the money spent on other things and it does so much good for so many families. Without tax credits I would have had to stay in a shitty relationship with my emotionally abusive ex. It was only because I was able to see a way out that I could split up with him and start to rebuild my life and my family.

Weird is spot on. It doesn't just benefit women to be out of awful relationships - it is better for the children, too - they don't grow up seeing one parent bullied or even beaten, and learn how to have a dreadful relationship themselves, as abused or abuser.

There are also many people who have children, and are in a position to house feed, clothe and nurture them - and then suddenly, they are out of a job; or one dies or becomes seriously ill/disabled; or one deserts the family - and they are thrown into poverty.

I feel that it is ridiculous that the government won't help people keep their homes by assisting with mortgages when redundancy hits, but is prepared to pay housing benefit into the pockets of landlords, even when this is more than the mortgage would have been. So what if it means it is going to providing an asset for an individual? It's ultimately cheaper in cash terms, and infinitely cheaper in emotional ones.

The people who really benefit from top-up benefits and tax credits etc, are employers who pay shitty wages and leave the government to mop up the surplus - THEY are the real benefits cheats. I'm not talking about small business with comparatively low profit margins, I'm talking about huge organisations which cream in millions in profit for their shareholders each year and pay massive bonuses to their upper echelon staff while keeping the people who do the hard graft on the lowest wage they can. These organisations also tend to be very reluctant to pay taxes, and often make suppliers wait excessive lengths of time for their cash (many a small business has gone under waiting to be paid by a large one).

I know that there are many people who think that if anyone receives benefits, they should work for them - I've heard people sounding off about it "even if they had these scroungers cleaning the streets, it would be something!". Well, as far as I'm concerned, if the streets need cleaning, then there is a PROPER JOB, which should be offered to someone on a PROPER WAGE and with PROPER HOURS and PROPER BENEFITS - not shoved onto some poor depressed bugger who is worn down with worry about how s/he is going to put a pair of cheap trainers on the kids' feet because the weather has turned awful and the ones they are wearing are too small and they take in.

I'm sick of people being penalised for being poor - obviously e would all like more - it's human nature, unfortunately, which is how our planet is in the exhausted state it is - but when people start giving up their 50 grand a year jobs so they can get one for 10 grand/year and claim benefits, I'll believe that the "scroungers" are better off!

@Justanotherlurker

Family C on £70K will be roughly in a similar position, as at that point they lose their benefits.

There are a lot of additional expenses that come with the ability to earn salaries in the top 5%, and I don't mean expensive suits or respectable lifestyle. For me, one week's worth of ultra late hours childcare when I need to finish my quarterly reporting / documentation sends me into overdraft.

@justanotherlurker I bring in £9k a year as a single parent and I only get £7200 in work and child tax credits so I don't see how anyone earning £15k could get £10k in tax credits, unless you're including the childcare element.

@SchadenfreudePersonified
but when people start giving up their 50 grand a year jobs so they can get one for 10 grand/year and claim benefits, I'll believe that the "scroungers" are better off!

I know several people who did exactly that. Single professional mothers with primary-aged children are better off with a £10K part-time job and benefit top-ups than on £50K with full-time childcare and no help whatsoever. And they have time to spend with their children too.

I work 30 hours. Salary of 15k last year. I get child benefit £88, working and child tax credits (incl childcare element) £400 and housing benefit £16 per month, 25% council tax reduction for being a single parent but no council tax benefit. Sounds a lot but that £1300 is running and maintaining a car, rent, debt, childminder, shopping, contents insurance, gas, electric, water, internet, pull ups, clothes, kids shoes, TV licence, mobile phone, council tax.