A third of households will receive around £1200 support with energy - described by Sunak as the most vulnerable

[cakeorwine]

It's great for people to get support. But AIBU to think that a country where a 1/3 of households will need such large support is a country with some massive inequalities and too many people living close to the edge. We are supposed to be a 'wealthy' country - but this has shown that a relatively large number of households do live close to the edge with not too much to spare at the end of the month.

The creeping privatisation of NHS services isn't helping anyone either. Apparently my NHS dentist left during Covid. She's been replaced by a private dentist "who is willing to see NHS patients as a one off, but if they wish to stay on the books you'll need to pay monthly denplan fee". Which is another £30 per month, per adult. Nobody else in my area is taking on NHS patients. So we'll have to find that money.

I'm not pleading poverty, we've seen our costs increase a lot for food, utilities etc like everyone else and I've not had a pay increase for 2 years. But we're not broke and I'm a firm supporter of ensuring additional support goes to those who are most vulnerable. And there are clearly many, many more families out there in need of that support than compared with 12 years ago. But as others have said, a bit more money here and there is tinkering at the edges (particularly given that this is fundamentally a bribe to attempt to put to bed damaging Partygate stories). There needs to be lasting and fundamental change in many different areas that impact the lowest earners the most.

I didn’t realise it was this tough but just heard very emotional report from NZ

Younger people upset they have to move elsewhere as unaffordable

The government there is generally popular (maybe gone down not sure) but also to the left?

amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/09/everything-is-rising-new-zealanders-make-painful-sacrifices-as-living-costs-skyrocket

The UK has huge problems, and a government utterly disinterested in solving them, and yet people still vote for them.

Not to mention costs and profits go up, but wages don’t. It’s shit.

I will get the extra payment, and obviously I’m not going to say no to that. I’ve got a kid to feed and keep warm, I can’t afford to get all noble about this shit. But they’re not fixing any of the long term problems.

The system before then was women staying in miserable or abusive marriages because they couldn't afford to leave.

I get about £5700 a year tax credits and I have one child, barely any childcare costs and a mortgage so I get none of the housing element. Someone in a rented house getting help towards rent and one or two children in full time childcare could easily get £12k.

So depressing isn't it.

In my opinion it's down to wage growth, sp many roles are paying the same as or very close to what they would have in 2008, all the while profits at many companies have been rising exponentially as have senior leaders wages and shareholders dividends thus creating this gulf of social inequality.

We need to tighten up our tax system of course but I would like to see paying people a real fair and proportionate wage (in comparison to profits) catch on as much as tax the rich. That's the key to unlocking our problems.....clearly that will never happen with this current government though.

I'm disabled as I had cancer a few years ago. I will get some assistance.

I'm obviously grateful for the support, but I find it very alarming that those who are in full time work aren't considered as much; most people I know in full time work are struggling just the same.

Before tax credits, there was something called Family Income Supplement for working families and Supplementary Benefit for non-working families, help with rent via HB and its forerunner, rent rebate, and a rebate on "rates," which was what we had before poll tax and council tax.

Going back even earlier, there was National Assistance, introduced by the Attlee government in 1947 or '48.

Something like 40% of people on UC are working. Many claims are purely for help with housing costs, because we live in an age where there are no controls on private sector rents and they are unaffordable for families on low or even average incomes. And childcare is horrendously expensive for the youngest children.

When the average rent on a family home is more than the average take-home pay in many parts of the country, people need financial support to keep a roof over their heads.

I work in welfare rights, so know the breakdown of a lot of clients' UC payments. Housing is nearly always the biggest element. I'd love to know what proportion of the "benefit bill" goes to landlords. I'm convinced that more social housing would reduce costs in the medium term, and I know it would reduce them in the long term. As would rent controls.

Of course, benefit bashers never moan about the amount of money that pays the BTL mortgages of landlords. The housing system is fucked.

There were lots of factors that contributed to that not the ability to afford to leave @Waxonwaxoff0 . I’d actually say we’re in a worse position now for women being able to afford to leave because the poor souls earn too much sometimes to be given assistance.

Vote in haste, repent at leisure. The Nation opted for a callous, me-first government as it opted for Brexit. The People (ironic) spoke and my god this government delivered.

But where does the money come from to level up. We work for the NHS (plus additional income) so won't get a pay rise this year, I bregrudge paying more tax to fund the welfare state when our income is being frozen in real terms year after year yet we are the comfortable middle class who could pay more.

All our friends earn considerably more than us from their main income but it's been earned through hard work and risk taking. It would feel wrong to ask them to contribute more.

So let's look at those in the bottom 1/3, how did they get there, what factors make it hard to get out of the cycle. That's what we need to tackle. Having multiple kids on minimum wage is never going to work, we have one despite being in the top 10% when you look at income distribution (it's doesn't feel like it!!)

If we lived to our means we would have a lot more money to spend as a country on the important things like education, health and support for the disabled

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have an economy where handouts are the default position that everyone wants but also don’t want people to be dependent on others. Tax credits were the worst thing that happened in the last half century. It suppressed wages and cemented the UK as a low wage economy. No employer needs to pay the going rate if the taxpayer will pick up the tab and make up the gap. But try saying this out loud and watch people frothing at the mouth as though someone punched them in the face.

Like I say, you can’t have it both ways.

If a family receive child tax credits will they get £400 + £650?

The problem with this is people who work full time, aren't entitled to any tax credits or universal credits and work full time but still don't have very much left over with the ever increasing bills

It should be done on household income not who gets the most benefits

No employer needs to pay the going rate if the taxpayer will pick up the tab and make up the gap. But try saying this out loud and watch people frothing at the mouth as though someone punched them in the face

It's hard - we do live in a country where rents (and mortgages) are expensive, childcare is expensive, lots of things that people need are expensive, and there are a lot of people who are in a vulnerable position as this cost of living crisis has exposed.

I do wonder how close to the edge many people are in this country - and how much household disposable income many people do have.

I suppose a question could be - if your household expenses went up by say 10%, would you still have more income than expenditure?

Or - what percentage would your household expenses have to increase by so you would have more expenditure than income? (And do you have savings to cover it?)

In terms of inequality the Gino coefficient is useful, you can see where U.K. fits here

worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country

iirc changes occurred from 1970s to 90s but has stabilised atm

Gini

a/c

OP you are absolutely right, it is an absolute disgrace that the level of struggling or vulnerable families in our country are so high. We should be ashamed of this.

The bar should not be that we are ok because we don't see kids in rags and no shoes, but I'm sure if you went to some surestart centres (if you can find any now) they will tell you in fact, there are children in this country living like that and that will only begin to increase as the cost of living is allowed to soar, while wages are static and disgraceful zero hours contracts are still legal.

A family with 2 working adults should not have to rely on food banks or state handouts, that just shouldn't be happening, make a wage a proper wage for people to actually live on, they are grafting and still just surviving with assistance, we should be ashamed and disgusted, how has this become the norm.

I do wonder how it is in other comparible countries? Cost of living is increasing - what fraction of the country are living close to the edge? How much state support is given to supplement incomes so people can get by?

I linked a NZ article below and their gov is to the left

If you have a look around many countries are facing the same and help is offered

I did find this cost of living table, U.K. isn’t too bad comparatively -

www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

‘These indices are relative to New York City (NYC). Which means that for New York City, each index should be 100(%). If another city has, for example, rent index of 120, it means that on an average in that city rents are 20% more expensive than in New York City. If a city has rent index of 70, that means on average rent in that city is 30% less expensive than in New York City.’

Aus, NZ, France, US higher CoL

1 Bermuda 146.04
2 Switzerland 123.35
3 Norway 100.90
4 Iceland 94.86
5 Barbados 92.37
6 Jersey 92.02
7 Israel 88.05
8 Denmark 84.12
9 Bahamas 84.00
10 Singapore 83.98
11 Guernsey 83.59
12 Hong Kong 80.71
13 Luxembourg 80.50
14 Australia 77.75
15 Japan 77.03
16 Ireland 76.05
17 Netherlands 75.66
18 New Zealand 74.52
19 France 74.13
20 South Korea 73.22
21 Finland 73.20
22 Belgium 72.61
23 Sweden 71.74
24 Austria 71.04
25 Canada 70.22
26 United States 70.13
27 United Kingdom 69.65

Governments keep saying that inflation will come down. That's true - but inflation being lower does not mean that prices fall. It just means that prices rise but not by as much as before.

I did find this cost of living table, U.K. isn’t too bad comparatively

But it's income - Switzerland may have expensive rent compared to NYC - but if people there earn more money than in NYC, the rent isn't expensive compared to what you earn.

Norway is an expensive place for someone from the UK to visit - but if you live there and earn a typical income - or even an income below the mean, can they get by without extra support from the Government.

worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

we’re a bit lower than say Aus whether we sit higher or lower CoL v income not sure

I know as an Aus / U.K. citizen who goes back often that two decades ago Aus was a very different proposition in terms of what you’d get and how expensive it is

There has always been an equivalent for tax credits since the 1970s. Before that some people were much poorer than people today.
Before childcare tax credits, many women with young kids could not afford to work. There was though a lot more informal cheap childcare e.g. Sandra from no 71 will keep an eye on your kids playing with her kids and give them some squash and biscuits. There were also a lot of latchkey kids e.g. kids from about eight years old with a key tied around their neck on string, letting themselves into their home.

It would cost too much money to do it by household income. Quicker and cheaper to just do it based on whether you get benefits.