To wonder on the future of generous welfare in the UK

[happybug1234]

It seems increasingly obvious that many middle-income families are becoming frustrated at how squeezed they are financially, while at the same time seeing people on universal credit receive a growing range of subsidies and support — £1 attraction tickets on days out, a 6% rise in benefits this financial year, childcare costs reclaimable through Universal Credit, housing benefit, and so on. I see thread after thread on this on this site and also increasing momentum in the media on this issue (income cliff edges etc)

In my own extended family, 1 unemployed parent with the other on min wage, in social housing appear to have more holidays and more disposable income than we do, despite us both working full time with a household income of around £95k. Once childcare, mortgage, insurances, commuting and tax are taken into account, we 100% have a lower level of disposable income than they do as they do not have any of these work related costs and their rent is paid. They have recently gone on a 2 week holiday whilst the most we can ever afford is 1 week.

Quite a few teachers in my friendship circle are declining promotion opportunities or TLR because the extra pay often doesn’t feel worth the additional stress once tax, pension contributions and childcare costs are factored in. Instead, some are putting more effort into private tutoring, which is tax free cash in hand.

What is stopping the government from addressing this as people seek to be responding accordingly in their behaviour!

I think the Labour Party might let the penny drop now that they've lost so many of their seats! The only decent thing to happen for us is nursery fees - which came too late for me (and was actually introduced by the tories).

nah when the middle class avoid tax it’s called cash in hand , pin money or a little extra 😂

couldn’t possibly be something illegal

The OP claims to be struggling on £95k and seems to think people on UC have it easier.

The doctors’ children might have to miss this trip, but I would wager that they have many more privileges than the kids who went for free.

As someone with a lot of doctor friends and family, I very much doubt he’s on the breadline.

I can’t afford to have more than 2 children, but I don’t resent the mums at school who live on benefits and have 5-6 children. I have lots of nice things that they don’t have (like a house, an advanced education and travelling the world when I was younger).

Don’t be daft! If all the doctors and hard working folk did that where would this wonderful benefit money come from?! No one is saying being on benefits is wonderful. Just that it isn’t fair to working ppl to make things free or very subsidised for those on benefits as others suffer. People should get what they worked for and that inspires people to work harder.

Long term the Doc will do fine as his salary will go up. But when in training there are a lot of costs and when you are paying for everything and being taxed surprisingly there is not much left. Doctors pay GMC fees, MDU fees to avoid being sued , RCP fees etc. If on a salary of 52K and have to pay rent, council tax, utilities, food, and there isn’t much left.

Oh are we moving on from criticising immigrants to unemployed people? Who is next?

Currently those kids don’t have much more than anyone on benefits as money is very tight. But long term they will be better off as their mum has also finished her exams and is looking for a job. She is also a doctor. So yes, their lives will improve and they are learning a valuable lesson that you have to work for what you want. Not sure what lesson the kids on benefits are learning?!

I might be wrong but are we not one of the countries that allows people to be on benefits for very long periods...?...I do know from family in Spain that unemployment benefit is appx 70% of salary, paid for a year and then reduces to very little, same in Latvia...you just cannot claim benefits for very long at all, food stamps are given out over there and a very small weekly amount.

Totally agree It was already tried in the mid 90s as i explained upthread. They didnt step up then and they wouldnt step up now

That’s their choice to be a doctor
they could have become a banker a lawyer or even an MP 😂 and earn more
they know the salary and the cost of being a doctor and that’s a choice they made

no one held a gun to their head

maybe they should have chosen a better paying job

but bitching about people who have the least and can access stuff they can’t because they are poor isn’t a particularly nice trait for a doctor

and I’m sure the doctors twins ( it’s always twins ) will do just fine

It was the Wages Councils that were abolished not the Low Pay Unit Ive mixed the two up. But the result was the same The Wages Councils were abolished and the employers didnt step up so what makes ppl think they will now
Context of Low Pay: In the early 1990s, over one million people earned less than £2.50 an hour, and around 300,000 earned less than £1.50 an hour.
Abolition of Protection: In 1993, the Conservative government abolished the remaining 26 Wages Councils, which had previously set minimum standards for about 2.5 million low-paid workers, largely eliminating statutory minimum pay until 1999.

lol I wasn’t aware that kids could claim benefits
you need to report that to the daily mail

I always assumed it was the parents that were able to claim benefits and not a group of 8 year olds

but if they are able to claim benefits at they age and navigate the UC system they are obviously much much smarter than the doctors twins who can’t claim any benefits despite having such educated parents 😂

who knew that 8 year old kids were that intelligent they can claim benefits to get a free trip to the Tower of London

fair play I say

But some people would have a huge problem with that too. There have been threads on that before, saying it’s “not right” that low income families with 2 year olds can access free childcare even though they don’t work. Never mind that to have an income low enough to qualify for the 2 year old funding you have to be literally on the bones of your arse.

It’s the same with school meals. Why should we have to pay for our kids meals etc etc when Sally down the road with half a dozen kids gets them for nothing. Never mind Sally has just fled an abusive relationship and doesn’t have a job. (I’m aware the criteria for FSM is changing)

To be on benefits and not work long term these days though you've pretty much got to be disabled or a carer, either to somebody quite badly disabled or, as in a pp's case, to very young children). A small number may be long term unemployed but they will have to show evidence of spending a full time equivalent number of hours applying for jobs. None of these people need more incentive to work harder because they already are working hard caring for others or are unable to work at all. The issue is that the tickets are unaffordable for people on low incomes, who aren't as easy to identify for discounts.

So two doctors

Im sure they will be fine
two high paying professionals will be absolutely fine

childcare for everyone is always a bitch to pay for no matter what you earn

they will always always be better off than someone claiming UC

and if they aren’t well tell them to separate have one kid each and claim UC as they se so envious of people who are claiming UC

at least that way they will be able to visit the Tower of London & the zoo for £1

Honestly, we should say that benefits will end (all of them, including the state pension) in 2050. That way people can be prepared. There can't be another situation like with the WASPI women saying that they didn't know.

I remember when austerity started under the tories when they said people on benefits weren't going to be better off and all the other cuts that were going to be made but all be worth it,our children will have a brighter future.
broadcasting programmes like benefit street got the crowds raging.
people being happy that lazy entitled people wouldn’t be better off than the hard workers.Until they realised once in.
I still remember the woman crying on tv that she had voted them in but didn’t realise that they meant her,she worked and insisted she wasn’t on benefits, she worked part time and got working tax credits housing benefit child benefit etc but didn’t see that as a benefit as she worked!

It’s not surprising really and to be expected,that if you cap the amount a family can receive regardless of how many children,to I believe is 25000 a year which has to pay for rent council tax etc but have no cap if your on the sick that the too sick to work will climb as it has.

Im not against benefits have been on them myself
but can see why if a system allows you to work little but get topped up why wouldn’t you ?
Everyone tries to make it work for them.
the high earner to reduce tax bills pays more in their pension or reduces their hours so they are better off if they don’t go over the 100000 so can get child care etc
the person who’s on a low wage works less hours because they receive more if they don’t or not worth it for an extra few pounds.

There are many things that need changing in this country and yes a few do take the piss.
however, I’m glad we have a safety net as no one knows what’s around the corner or what your children or future children,partners parents,friends or yourself etc will need in the future.

Instead of blaming the people who of course will do what’s best for them (again why wouldn’t you )
the government should be really helping everyone.
And start delivering the promises of a brighter future for us all.

Well, at least the doctor can make some educated choices on which patients need sterilising lol. Maybe slip a cheeky DNR note in the file. 😂

I remember the article about the woman earning a little over £40k and getting a £60k top up to pay for the four bed house in London she needs for all her kids. She was very happy about the two child rule as she said she was struggling on a little over £100k.

It reminded me of all the threads on here where OPs are told they must be spending above their means if struggling on £100k. Evidently the government concurred that this was a necessary amount to be able to provide a decent standard of living to her family in London.

If it's the article I think you're referring to, the woman had 15 children. Hardly typical and of course they're going to cost more than your average family who should of course be able to survive just fine on 100k in the absence of any unusual circumstances. If you're referring to someone else, can you post a link please?

I just looked up the maximum LHA in London and was shocked that it is £704 a week or £36 000 a year for a 4 bedroom house in some parts of inner London.

Do you have a link to the article because even with the maximum rent a £60k top up seems too much.

Oh so we are c@nts because we don’t agree with you?

What a truly insensitive comment to make.

Or leave the country. That's what we did.

But the extended family members will get to keep their social housing in retirement, and receive pension credit if they have no workplace pension. OP will still be responsible for maintenance on her house, council tax and so on, and her asset will be either sold to pay for care (which her relatives will have free courtesy of the state) or taxed before it can be handed on to her children / family.