to think that very many PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON BENEFITS?

[ParsingFancy]

Because there seems to be some confusion about this.

I keep seeing bollocks like "people in work have to limit their children, so people on benefits should too."

Excuse me, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON CHILD BENEFIT.

And "working people can't afford adequate housing per child, so people on benefits shouldn't get either."

But PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON HOUSING BENEFIT.

Also, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON INCOME SUPPORT.

And PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE.

Oh and PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON WORKING TAX CREDITS.
That one was hard, wasn't it?

YANBU. Many people including couples are working 39 hours a week and more yet still having to rely on tax credits. Maybe instead of getting angry and labelling them scroungers people should instead look at companies making huge profits year on year yet paying their staff such a shit wage that their workers have to rely on the government to top it up.

Exactly agree with Mrs Scoob.

The disparity between those who control the wages of those lower down the scale is eye watering. I believe the average difference between top and bottom in an average comapny is about 50 times the wages or soemthing like that.

Very true op. I guess though people treat working claimants differently because at that time they are also paying in. Although of course those on benefits have probably previously paid in and will again.
Incidently come January we will no longer receive any benefits as we are losing child benefit.

cuteboots, so you're a working person on benefits, non?

When you see a politician or thread saying, "working people X, but people on benefits Y," do you identify with just one? Or do you spot that you're both and the politician makes no sense?

Argument One-

The benefit system should be severely overhauled/cuts or changes made because some people abuse it.

The laws regarding murder/theft/violence/rape should be overhauled/changes made because some people 'abuse' it.

Illogical. Punish those that abuse, not those desperately trying to manage whilst Gideon Oddborne, Shameron-Hameron and Horrid Johnson smugly slide by on a trail of their own self satisified slime. Cuntservatives.....Yuck.

YANBU. I work almost full time and my DH is currently on ESA, although for how much longer remains to be seen as he was assessed YET AGAIN last month.
We can therefore claim a small amount of housing benefit along with child tax credits and child benefit.
As he is on ESA we are also entitled to free school dinners which has been a huge help.

CAPSLOCK AWARENESS DAY :)

yanbu. we're both 'on benefits' and in work.

though not as much as when only one of was working.

Surely once upon a time, a woman's decision to have children wouldn't have been questioned as it seems to be now, I would have thought that most women hope to reproduce at some point, not everyone is lucky to enough to end up in a high-flying career or with a very well-off partner (by the way, I do hope that these 'benefit-bashers' understand that circumstances can and do change, most of us are only one step away from needing to claim benefits)! Of COURSE every couple who choose to have children should make sure at least one of them is earning but if they're not earning a super wage, they're going to accept the help available, as most people would (though they may deny that, until they get screwed over by their high-earning OHs). Why don't some people get their heads out their arses and realise that being financially better off than someone doesn't make for a better person, ESPECIALLY those who rely on their partner's wages and would be fucked if they couldn't anymore.

I know people with loads of kids, not working getting all the benefits of the day. One of the people i know has just given birth to her 5th and no intention of stopping, her and him dont work, as far as i know she never has since leaving school. She is out every weekend, new outfits hairdos the works.

And a plasma goat?

Mignonette makes a key point. If some people abuse the system, then address that specifically - prosecute for fraud, say, if that's the appropriate course of action. It's ludicrous to penalise vast swathes of people because the DM ran a story about "benefit scroungers with 10 kids living in 15 bedroom palace".

And as far as 'the taxpayer' goes (let's just disregard the fact that many of these benefit 'scroungers' are also paying tax), you won't suddenly not have to pay tax because poorer people than you have their benefits slashed. Unless I've missed something.

what does abuse the system mean though?

i support anyone who claims as much as they can whilst making honest declarations.

is that scrounging?

or is it not being silly? i think if the government is willing to give me money, i'm a fool not to take it...

vast swathes of people will claim things like child benefit and CTX because they can, rather than because they are driven by direst need to do so.

whether the government is getting it right in benefit levels is surely the question, not whether individuals are right to claim them.

We need to get people off benefits. It's unhealthy to have a society where so many are dependent on the state.

ParsingFancy- Yep I get the huge sum of £20 per week CB and thats it. I would class myself as working and not living on benefits.

That's helpful Cozy, shall we just shoot old people whilst we are at it - it must be equally unhealthy to have so many elderly to keep paying out for then?

in terms of responsibility though, you'll claim that £20 regardless of your personal circumstances because you can

responsibility for that lies with government.

Precisely usualsuspect, people who work hard should not NEED their pay topped up in order to pay basic bills. The system does not work and merely pledging to slash the benefits bill will not fix anything at all

cuteboots, if you want to "not be living on benefits" why did you just not claim them?

Or is it OK because you don't actually need them?

I know people with loads of kids, not working getting all the benefits of the day. One of the people i know has just given birth to her 5th and no intention of stopping, her and him dont work, as far as i know she never has since leaving school. She is out every weekend, new outfits hairdos the works.

I know lots of people - lots of young families around here - and I don't know anyone like this .

This is a traditional working class area, lots of social housing. The people I know are all hardworking, usually both partners work. I can't think of one couple who are just living on benefits and sprogging endlessly.

I honestly believe that people give (fictitious) examples like this just to win the benefits argument.

The proposals seem to me to be ideological rather than a response to wrong doing with regard to benefits on a massive scale.

I sincerely hope that anyone who bitches about benefits claimants and has kids, is NOT claiming CB.

I posted this on the David Cameron thread but am re-posting it here. YANBU

Supposing I am a single father. I work full time. I am a counter assistant in a pharmacy. I earn the minimum wage of £6.08 an hour.
Surprised? Many more people only earn minimum wage than you realise.

I work 37 hours a week, and after tax and NI earn approx £9.5 k a year.

Out of that, my small 2 bed flat is £6300 a year (£525 a month)

Leaving me with £3.2 K

My council tax is £960 a year

balance is now £2,240.

Travel to work and back is £60 a month. That's £720 a year.

My energy bills, even with turning the heat of after my child has gone to bed at 7, are £750 a year.

Water is £380 a year.

I now have £390 left. A year.

Oh hang on. Before and after school Childcare while I am at work.

£2925

I still don't even have access to the internet, let alone school clothes and shoes, let alone FOOD.

And I am in debt by £2,535

So here is my question.

Do you:

A) MASSIVELY increase the minimum wage so that people who work full time can afford food, heat, housing and warmth.

or

B) provide a top up benefits system, so they can have all of the above.

Because you have to have one. Or the other.

These things are not luxuries.
With no benefits, people on low incomes would simply be homeless. All of them.
Oh, and the figures for rent etc above are very conservative figures. In the South East they would be a LOT more.

However the money comes into your household you should still consider whether you can afford another child and I don't think it is ok to assume that exta benefits will pick up the bill. Ok, so some people use the wrong terminology (me included) but the principal is still the same.

OP - Following this argument everyone whether working or not is 'in receipt of benefits' due to CB (with the possible exception of a few who voluntarily do not claim it). It is clouding the argument.

However you look at it the benefits system needs overhauling as the country cannot afford it.
There is also something intrinsically wrong with a system that can make you worse off or no better off if you work longer hours. There was a poster yesterday who increased her hours by 5 a week and all that happened was she lost with one hand what she gained with the other. Sheer madness how is that suppose to incentivise anyone.
There is a huge discrepancy between what those at the top earn and those at the bottom. Top up benefits have contributed to keep wages low. It is about time a fair wage was paid for a fair days work. Maybe then the UK will not be so reliant on top up benefits.