If you're really fed up of all "your" money going to benefits ....

[Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits]

We really need to be campaigning for more council homes. One of the biggest payouts is housing benefit because of the extortionate private rent costs.

That single mum topping up with UC to bring her to over 100k? (supposedly) Wouldn't happen if her rent wasn't >£2000pcm for a 1 bed flat.

Build a 3 bed house for £300,000 (presumably less with large contracts). Charge £500 rent, they'd make the money back in 50 years even without increases. And houses last more than 50 years!

I know I've read several comments over the years from people saying this. RTB was the worst etc. So why hasn't it happened? Upfront cost. It would cost the government a hell of a lot upfront, despite the astronomical gain further down the line. But if they're not in power when the gains start to show, they get none of the glory. And that's what it boils down to. Elected governments only want something they can boast about within their term. Who cares if it benefits the country in the long run? If it doesn't benefit them short term, it doesn't matter.

Same with education. Better funding will result in more people in work, out of poverty and out of crime in 20 years time. It's the best use of money possible! But no.

SEN funding. Early intervention can prevent children getting to crisis point and keep the gap from widening so they have a chance of staying in school, getting qualifications and contributing to society in the future. Not funding SEN effectively is pretty much cutting off a section of society and forcing them to spend their lives on benefits. Funding could give them a chance. But no.

How many health conditions could be improved by early treatment so people don't end up out of work and incapacitated on benefits?

You've got to spend money to make money...

The English Housing Survey (EHS) estimates that 23% of private rental homes do not meet the Decent Home Standard – around 1 million homes. This compares with 13% of owner-occupied and 10% of social-rented homes.

In Scotland, the local authority where I live are building new council houses. It certainly wouldn't cost £300,000 to build a house. I think you live in England? House prices are crazy there (I always wonder for what reason?!). You can buy a new build 3 bed here for £240,000 or less. So I imagine it must cost a lot less to build. I am with you, OP. Madness where the money goes. But I do not blame those living in poverty for taking 'my' money. Even when it seems like people make choices and rely on the taxpayer, I always wonder how much is ingrained into them through their own life experiences and we have to remember that the poverty trap is very very real.

In the example quoted we do not have the full picture.

We do not know if this person has a husband/partner and what their partner's employment status is?

If they don't have an entitlement to maternity leave from work then there is a government maternity allowance for 39 weeks

There is also a £500 Maternity Grant

It seems to me that the midwife did not give enough advice about the benefits available. 28 days after birth a Health Visitor should visit and again be able to give advice about what help is available.

Cherry picking a situation doesn't give a clear picture at all.

You don't know what I begrudge or don't begrudge and your suggestion that I would like to see children queuing at a well was offensive. But if that's the level of your debating skill, then I guess it is.

Relative poverty has serious effects but it isn't seeing children starve as others have suggested.

There's a news article about a single parent family being topped up to over 100k pre- tax equivalent. She would be getting child benefit alongside her other benefits.

There's a whole thread about it.

Wheras a single parent family earning 70k would be having their child benefit taken away.

You don't believe there are children starving at this moment in our country ?

OP I totally agree with you on council housing. The crisis we now have shows that social housing is necessary for the people who are only ever going to be able to do lower paid work. We aren’t all going to be high flying careerists
I would go further and bring back rent controls on private rented houses. There used to be a fair rent assessment that a tenant could apply for that fixed a maximum rent on a property and a landlord couldn’t charge more. This would reduce Housing Benefit costs and also ensure that people not entitled to benefits wouldn’t have to pay massive rents on poor quality housing. And if it causes the landlords to sell their properties because they can’t make the massive profits -all well and good as the price of houses may then come down if there is a glut in the market

I do, and whats more I don't believe they are limited only to parents who don't have enough money to feed them and certainly not only to parents with 3 or more children.

I do not believe that 20,000 families with 6 or more children should be getting a tax free income increase of £14000 or more in April.

Starving from poverty? No.
Hungry from poverty? Definitely.
Starving from neglect? Definitely.

Yet I see the opposite. Hard working youngsters really see the non working younger people as the issue. 🤷‍♀️

I honestly don't understand this sorry.

If tax thresholds are frozen, why will someone on 35 k a year be a grand worse off eventually ?

Basic rate is between 12571 and 50270.

Where does the 1k worse off come from ?

Genuine question.

I think the background issue is a distortion of Keynesian economics. According to Keynes, it is worth borrowing in times of recession so the government can prop up the economy, keep people in work and improve infrastructure for all the reasons you outline. However, this is meant to be a temporary measure until the recession passes, after which fiscal prudence should return. Our problem is 30 years of fiscal imprudence of the sort Keynes would see as a temporary, not long term strategy. Furthermore, it has not been invested as you suggest, but has largely been wasted on intangible ideologically driven agendas and expensive white-collar consultants.

The result is huge debt and little to show for it. It’s even worse than after WW2 when we spent Marshall Aid on implementing the welfare state before having the tax contributions to support it, whereas Germany and France used their Marshall Aid for wealth and income-generating infrastructure projects. The long term fallout of that can be seen in the 80s with deindustrialisation and the knock-on consequences of job losses and high unemployment rates in former industrial areas. Germany is busy destroying its industrial base at the moment, but for 40 years it demonstrated that expensive first world countries can maintain high end manufacturing industries if they are efficient and have the right tax regimes.

I’m not sure I understand it either, but AI says it’s to do with fiscal drag and the fact that inflation will continue along side the freeze. I am interpreting this to mean that the impact of the budget means they will be 1400 worse off in real terms rather than accounting terms?

Totally agree. Dh and I both work full time earning £70k pa, so not exactly on the breadline. But we get UC top up because we have 3 dc and rent a 3 bed house in the south east. The housing element is probably the biggest cost in UC, it’s criminal. If taxpayers want the benefit budget to be reduced then focus on the biggest payment - the extortionate rents charged by greedy landlords.

What happened to all the wonderful Breakfast Clubs that Labour said they were rolling out?

Broadly £50K today has the same spending power as £30K in 2010. All things being equal, a job paying £30K then should pay £50K now. Let’s ignore for now the fact that wages have stagnated and the job probably pays less than that. In 15 years, depending on inflation, a salary with equivalent real-world spending power might be £75K. If the tax threshold is frozen, the employee will being paying 40% income tax on a third of their salary, amounting to an extra £2,500 compared with if the tax thresholds had risen inline with inflation. This represents a far greater proportion of tax relative to earnings than the same job pays today, making them worse off.

Yup. I get it in terms of prices and wages continue to rise while thresholds are static, so with normal pay rises people might move up a bracket while the bracket threshold is not in sync.

But the PP said they are about 35k, that's a long way from the next bracket.

It confuses me.

Yup. I just posted that I get that.

But where is the PP getting the 1k worse off figure. 35k is a fair bit away from the next bracket at 50k.

THIS, THIS, THIS. A push to clamp down on this kind of corporate tax avoidance needs cross border agreement though, something that became weaker for us post Brexit.

Going to ask my DH to explain it with crayons and graph paper… 🤯

It's both. Gen Z and young millennials are angry at the older generation and their same age cohort who don't work. It will be interesting to see who they vote for next election because labour have not prioritised the young and that is what they needed to do as soon as they were elected.

I suspect the PP got it from GB news :-)

I think I should maybe raid DD's crayon box too, and eat some. To see what it's like to be a reform voter.

Might taste better than the leftie felt tip pens I usually suck.

:-)

Just texted DH. No stealth brag but he is a head of tax somewhere important (he tells me). He’s also brilliant at explaining complex maths stuff to dummies… but right now he is probably pissing himself laughing at my question.

I had to justify it in terms of both of our kidlets likely being grads on that income in 2031 (please god, don't let them be at home and unemployed 🤯). I will report back if I am any the wiser later.

Poverty isn’t a paperwork error. These benefits total less than £7,000 for 9 months. That doesn’t change material conditions.

Maybe read beyond the example.

The reasons for people finding themselves in poverty are explained.

Why are you happy to leave children in poverty?