No family on benefits will be able to claim more welfare than the averge wage

[lucky1979]

EXCLUDING those with disabilities.

Quote from The Times:
?So I can announce today that we will announce a limit on the total amount of welfare any one family can receive,? he says ? set on the principle that no family should get more on benefits than the average family does for going out to work. ?Money for families that need it but not more than families that go out to to work. That?s what we think is fair.?

I agree in principle, but not sure how it will be applied, or really how many people it will effect - I suspect the biggest knock on will be for housing benefit but would be interested in more indepth figures to see if it's just a headline measure and how much saving it will actually make.

What is the national average wage? 23k?

I think it's 25K but not sure how they are planning to calculate it.

I think it is around that. What they should do is make the total amount the equivalent to full time work at minimum wage though.

thing is though you can work 40hrs at minumum wage and only earn 10k a year - so would still qualify for some housing benefit (according to entitled to if I were earning 10k a year then I'd still get 1/2 my rent paid for me) and tax credit

I think this government has forgotten that a very large proportion of low income workers also claim benefits,

Well, considering there are people claiming on the other thread that you have to live hand to mouth in the south east if you "only" earn 44K then there must be some in London or they wouldn't be surviving!

"I think this government has forgotten that a very large proportion of low income workers also claim benefits,"

But you'd get the 10K in your example PLUS a maximum of the 25K (or whatever), so you'd still be better off.

haha Riven - you know just now on entitled to I nearly put in a footballers wage.

I put in 10,000 - but didn't realise it was still on "weekly" so click on annual and it converted the 10k into the yearly salary

Oh god, my mother will be pleased.

I agree, I don't think this will affect many, just a headline grabber as a BBC reporter put it

It will be capped at £500 a week according to the news.

Far too high - if they are going to punish welfare scroungers (and any family without anyone disabled who is claiming more than £500 a week in benefits is scrounging) then the limit should be more like £320 - giving an annual income of £16,600.

Still, a very good start.

?Money for families that need it but not more than families that go out to to work. That?s what we think is fair.? Indeed, that would be fair.

Riven I watched that part of the speech - he very clearly said that the cap only applied to households where no-one was disabled.

with 3 children earning 10k a year I'd get a total of 17k in benefits.

That's £2455 in child benefit
housing benefit of just under 4k (I live in a pretty cheap part of the country to rent in - East Midlands)
and the rest made up of CTC and WTC

(although I didn't include childcare costs on the form as I have no idea what they'd be so I left it blank). i guess that would bump the amount claimed up significantly.

so in actual fact someone working minimum wage 40hrs a week is probably actually claiming more than me in TC, CB and HB than I am.

God that's seriously fucked up isn't??? Someone working full time still needs as much government top ups to survive as they would get if not working at all!!! (and the Tax/NI they pay is pretty minimal).

No wonder this country is in such a fucking mess - those slogging their guts out 40hrs a week aren't actually getting enough to live on without the government having to bail them out for as much as they were getting on benefits.

So all these people they want to get off the dole into (probably) low paid jobs are going to be costing just as much

LFN - if I were to work 40hrs a week @ minimum wage I would only get £50 a week less from the government (excluding whatever they'd give me to help towards childcare costs) than I get now.

If I put in a figure of £120 a week for childcare costs then I would be getting nearly £100 more than I currently get on benefits.

My god that would mean it was costing the government more for me to work than not to work

Ma it is fucked up. And it clearly suggests that the real beneficiaries are not the claimants but those employers who are failing to pay a living wage, and those private landlords who are fortunate enough to have their mortgages paid by the state in the form of housing benefit. But strangely nobody seems to be labelling these groups as scroungers.

and that £100 is per week btw.

it's madness isn't it.

Thankfully I'm not looking to go back to work for the governments sake - but my own.

I must say I'm in private rented right now and the rent is very reasonable and just covers the mortgage. (and he's a very lovely landlord - so I don't want him targeted )

But if you were working then you would be helping to employ childcare workers and keeping more people in a job.

Not to mention the millions of people employed to calculate your tax credits award

no I wouldn't be helping to employ them - the government would - the Tax and NI on 10k a year is not particularly huge.

And THOSE child care workers would be in the same boat as me - claiming vast amounts off the government to keep themselves afloat.

So yes the employment figures would look nice and pretty - but there'd be no more money in the pot.

and there was me thinking that when I start working (or start a business??? - don't ask LOL) I would be costing the state less than I do now