Working families £18k worse off than benefits claimants after budget

[shoelances]

This is madness. Can the last taxpayer in the UK please close the door behind them.

www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/households-on-handouts-to-be-18-000-better-off-than-families-on-modest-wages/ar-AA1RqxlQ

I couldn't do it well, and vulnerable people need and deserve carers who can do it well. Without going back over the whole thread I don't know if you yourself are in the care sector or if you mean 'we' in terms of society, so I'm unsure what point you're making here.

That sounds a truly shocking figure. I read the other day 25% of people are now classed as disabled. This really cannot be true.

It doesn't surprise me. It makes sense to me that those who have a disabled child are more likely to claim UC because they will also be more likely to have a parent out of work due to caring responsibilities and are also more likely going to be on lower salaries due to likely working part time if it is possible for them to work.

My point is that there aren't enough people that want to be carers that would do it well. We as a society already have a massive shortage of carers and this will only get worse over the coming decades. Tweaking T&Cs and pay won't change that. We don't have the money as a society to drastically alter T&Cs or pay for carers. Lots of people can't pay for their own care at current cost levels. The state is crippled by debt and the last thing it can afford to fund is more expensive social care.

The reality now is that done is better than perfect when perfect is unachievable. We need to operate in the real world and vulnerable people need adequate care. Ideally of course it would be better than adequate but we need to set realistic goals and put in strong checks and measures otherwise we risk failing our vulnerable people completely with this idea that there are loads of good carers available to fill all these vacancies.

What people are failing to grasp is that it would cost the taxpayer even MORE if we forced Mums back into work. A mother with two kids pre school-age in my area, paying £1000 a month in private rent would get £1580.76 a month UC. I think we can all agree that would be a pitiful existence raising two children on £500 a month after rental costs for all bills, food and living costs.

If the same Mum worked 16 hours a week, she’d pay no tax. Assuming p/t childcare for both children was £600 for each, she would earn £880 a month in wages and get £2342.23 in UC. Total income after rent and childcare is £1022, so over £500 better off than not working.

If she worked full time, and the children were in full time nursery (£1200 a month each) she’d earn £2037 and pay £270 tax/NI. She’d get £2607.70 in UC and take home £1760 in wages. After rent and childcare she’d have £967 left to live on.

So not only is she worse off after childcare is paid than working part-time, it also costs the taxpayer more for her to go to work full-time.

I think we’d be cutting our noses off to spite our faces if we were to force mothers with young children into full time work. She would suffer, her children would suffer, and the taxpayer would suffer. But maybe some pps would be happy to pay extra taxes to support it just out of jealousy. And if they think someone is getting something they’re not, they can always stop work and try and run a home and raise 2 children on £500 a month.

Why can't it?

Siri show me someone who doesnt understand the rules of living in social housing.

Risk to Tenancy: A primary concern is that social housing tenants risk losing their homes if they live away for extended periods, as seasonal fruit-picking jobs often require living in caravans or on-site accommodation for weeks or months at a time.
Logistical Challenges: Many social housing tenants, particularly single parents, have family responsibilities and cannot easily relocate for a season. The logistics of moving a family to a farm, and what to do with their primary residence, are major obstacles.

And you sound like just the type of person who would report them for not living there.

And another reason this wouldnt work is because of frequent visit from HAs for repairs and surveys See @Frequency posts.

Of course it could always be achieved by giving social housing tenants more rights. Like the right to live away from home for any reason. Up for that are we? No? Thought not.

It would also involve HAs having to massively overhaul the way they do things.

I didn't say there were loads of good carers, sadly the opposite seems to be the case. But I tell you what, the sums we are now forking over for a measly 2 hours' care a day for my mum, I'd be interested to know how much care company owners and senior staff generally are taking home. It's hard to believe they can only afford to pay carers NMW, that's all I'm going to say.

What on earth has that response got to do with my post? Maybe walk away from Siri for a bit?

People are going to have to start contributing more to the cost of their parents care if they want to subcontract caring for family to the state.

The 25% figure does not mean all of those people classed as disabled claim benefits. Also, 45% are pension age.
The Equality Act also considers a diagnosis of cancer as a disability, and for the rest of your life. That is even if you are fully recovered and have no symptoms.

@Bumblebee72

No one should be allowed to sit at home on their Xbox when there are veg to be picked.

I imagine it's this bit. It's been a while since I last visited London, but I don't remember seeing many veg farms last time I was there. Fruit pickers tend to live on site; that's why it is a popular job for migrants; they travel here to pick fruit for our season, then move on to the next country when our season ends.

It's a competitive industry and not a monopoly. It's unlikely that the margins are massive. Google suggests there is around a 20% profit margin for care which isn't huge and similar to other parts of the service sector. You have to account for all the employer costs e.g. NI, pension contributions, training etc.

Care is inherently expensive because it's so labour intensive.

I strongly doubt any veg is sitting unpicked in the fields because not everyone works. 🙄

I’m sorry but that’s laughable. You have a duty to try to support yourself and your family it’s not up to the Taxpayer to pay you to stay at home. . Most taxpayers would not have an issue with helping to support those in full time work and on a low wage. I certainly have no problem with it. They are contributing. And once the children are in school that wage becomes their own apart from taxes. But there’s a common thread again running through this it’s mums, mums, mums. Where are the FATHERS who should be supporting their children? It may not be a popular fact but the reason why children live in poverty is because the FATHERS don’t contribute to their children l’a upbringing This is the real problem and that is not the fault of the taxpayer

Yep, that's about the measure of it or of course they could do the caring themselves. I can hear the arguments about why they couldn't possibly do this already but of course they expect some stranger to willingly do it. Someone somewhere has to do the care work. It's either often unwilling and reluctant family members or people that we can push into the sector who can't find alternative employment. There aren't really any other options.

Brits could live on site too. They complain enough about the cost of housing. Win win. Highly skilled people generally understand that you move to where the work is, lowly skilled people seem to expect people to bring the work to them. It is all about mentality.

Have you ever cared for an adult relative yourself?

Don't they also have to pay a cut of their wages for their accommodation? That way they are basically being paid less than NMW.
This wont work for people who have homes to run and family to support elsewhere.

It is seasonal. Would you want to be homeless for many months of the year?

Except they can't because, as was pointed out, if you live in social housing or get help towards your rent, you're not allowed to pootle off somewhere else to live for X weeks of the year, unless we change those rules.

The caravans and tents they sleep in are also not suitable for families, nor are the sites anywhere near most schools.

There are reasons Brits don't work as fruit pickers, and it's not because they prefer living on £400 a month, which is the going rate for UC for a single person.

So is childcare so surely if its ok to put the elderly at risk by forcing ppl to do the job who really dont want to do it then its ok to do that to other groups no? Why should it only be the elderly who should be potential collateral damage?

Unfortunately in the working part time example, the claimant would be hit with the benefit cap due to earning under £892 per month.

Apart from that, you're correct. There are some circumstances when working more hours results in less overall combined income. The most common reason for this is high childcare costs. However, as a general rule the more you work on UC the better off you are overall. I suppose she wouldn't be paying such high childcare costs once the kids went to school though.

The young men who could aren't doing it because it is easy to collect the dole and play on a X box.

A stranger is paid a wage, with all the extras like training, sick pay, holiday etc.
Family do not get that. People who step out of the workforce to care for a relative get about £80 a week to do so. No respite, no training, no sickness pay, no holiday. Their career is stalled or gone altogether.