Benefits...following on from unfit parents thread...

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

Oh dear semantics- I mean I know a lot of city bankers......

Sorry - I earn this much because I worked bloody hard at school and on different qualifications since (all paid for by me), I have never been out of work and have never claimed anything - if I had to I would work in McDonalds as I feel that my responsibilities are mine alone and I as an able bodied individual have no right to expect anyone else to support me or mine.

I feel that I have drive and ambition and a certain amount of responsibility and do not disagree with all of your views - I think that yes it is fair that I should pay tax but am horrified that anyone would be so irresponsible to decide to have another child whilst on benefits and think that if there is no reason why you cannot work to support your dependants you should seriously think about not having any.

Prufrock - I think your manifesto is great and would most certainly vote for you.

no, no, I'm not arguing that it isn't fair that someone on 150k pays 40% and someone on 1m pays 40%, I'm arguing that it is fair. I'm saying if you take the sliding scale too far (pay 40% up to eg 100k, 50% up to 150k, 60% up to 300k, 70% up to 1m, like in the 70s for example) then the person who is earning 1m+ will make sure that all of their salary over 150k is paid - in jersey, in gold bars, to their dog, etc - whatever avoidance scheme happens to be legal. or will simply move and become tax resident somewhere else and commute to work or work remotely etc, whereas these options wouldn't be available to someone on 150k. They will end up getting battered by 50% income tax whereas people being paid more will ensure there average rate of tax is much less.

but I must say although anyone would class me as "rich" (except perhaps people who actually are rich!) I have a much more socialist view than a lot of people on here. I think those who are fortunate enough, hardworking enough, intelligent enough, whatever, to earn good money should put their bit into society to help others who aren't. And if that means that there is some fraud, or you help people who are just lazy or feckless or generally not nice - well, no system is perfect but the benefits to society outweigh that. But I don't believe that you use such high earners as cash cows - because the milk will stop flowing.

Boe - I "worked bloody hard a school", have an Oxbridge degree (hence the reason I know so many bankers), have a PhD and STILL I'm on benefits. But I paid into the system for sveral years, dh pays into the system now. Our son doesn't have his health and education needs met. If and when I can work again I will (and will be paying into the system again). TBH we have spent more on basic services (SALT and OT) for DS1 than we have received from the State in terms of DLA and CA.

Now you may say that my situation is different, but everyone comes to be recieving benefits through a different means. There are very few "world owes me a living" type cheats and scroungers out there. Offer most people a job with a decent wage that they can live on - and of course they would choose it rather than benefits.

There are many reasons why people don't end up with a good education. I had one becuase I lived in a "nice" area and went to decent schools where it wasn't seen as abnormal to enjoy studying and you were expected to revise for exams. But that's a different topic......

Yes Jimjams I am, but not in the £4,000 a month category (and can I just say I'm so grateful to you all for resisting the temptation to subsitute a w for the b) I am still in touch with reality - actually filled in a DLA myself last week for grandmother on behalf of my mother, and can well remember what it was like to live on benefits.

And I pay lots of tax because I work bloody hard. I (and dh) regularly work from 8am to 5, then again at home from 8-11.30 when dd is in bed. If you are going to take all of my above average pay in tax then I'm not going to work at an above average rate. People in the city might be insulated from reality, but people outside the city are often insulated from just how hard we actually work, and how much stress we put up with in return for the mega wages.

www - what was wrong with my ideas? (I fully accept my rant was outrageous BTW)

Boe, no, you don't get anything from the state except your child benefit but if you were to be fired (and it wasn't your fault because I'm pretty sure you don't get anything if it is - see, it would makes you one of the undeserving poor) tomorrow, you would be entitled to help. What do you perceive as the problem with that? Since you've paid into the system you can expect it to pay out to you if you need it. And no, it isn't a hugely generous amount, as mammya and others have said (thanks for that). What would you propose as an alternative? That you are made homeless because you can't afford the rent, that you starve because you can't afford to eat...you get the idea. And before you say "oh, I'd get another job" what if you couldn't? Or what if you became disabled? Or your child needed full time care? Would you expect the state and taxpayers to abandon you in these circumstances?

Prufrock, no you don't get anything from the state because, presumably, you don't need it. Well, actually you do, presumably you get £63 a month child benefit, i.e. the same-ish as a single mother on benefits? Hmm, I could argue that since you don't actually need it you shouldn't get it, but I won't since child benefit being means tested is a whole other kettle of fish I expect yours goes into an account for your child though for when they are older, whereas for many parents it is needed to contribute towards basics like food/housing etc.

Boe, You say "I resent being away from my daughter each day, thinking I am being a responsible adult and providing for me and my own, to allow you to claim benefits from a pot that I am paying into so you can stay with your child". Well, for some people the childcare/working equation doesn't work, it simply doesn't. Or they can't work. For example, if childcare costs £1000 pcm and you can only earn a maximum of £900 pcm, then what would you recommend a parent do?

My view is that I am contributing a highly valuable service to my children, family and society by staying at home, (not any more or better than a working parent, don't want to start that one here!) and it's equivalent to a huge cash contribution. And my partner works so we are entitled to WFTC. Before I had a child I was a 40% tax payer so I can assure you I've contributed to the pot too. But maybe I count as a scrounger by your definition? I am counted by the Govt as someone claiming benefits, certainly.

OK, now for some statistics. The population of the UK is 58m, 6.2m of whom are claiming benefits or tax credits, so people receiving benefits are nowhere near this "half the population" figure that's being bandied around. More like 11%. But, of this 58m, 11.7m are dependent children, 2.5m of whom live in families claiming benefit of some kind (I'm in there for WFTC as will Jimjams be for claiming disability payments). So we're not even talking about the majority of parents or the majority of the population who are claiming benefits.

Prufrock I do agree with you on making childcare a taxable expense though and re policies enabling parents to stay at home if they want to rather than forcing them into work, even where it's not economically viable to satisfy right wing baying for parents to have to work outside the home. Sorry, I was being quite reasonable up to that point, wasn't I?

PPP - very articulaty(sp?)put - couldn't say it any better myself!

boe, go and do the sums about how much you would earn at McDonalds vs what you need to live on before you tell me it's economically viable.

Jimjams, at your £4k a month friend and to you too Prufrock re the w for a b!!! I thought about it m'dear, I thought about it...

prufrock prufrock prufrock. I think we're getting a bit hairy shirty here iykwim- but people in the regions work bloody hard as well. When Dh moved from the City to sunny Devon no less he fully expected that his rather large drop in salary would be reflected in decreased working hours. Guess what? He works until 11.30 most nights as well (which is why I'm so often on mumsnet at night). In fact in terms of number of hours he outs into work he does more here than he did in the city (although without the hideous commute thank god). And of course because you're not paying half a million for a 3 bedroomed terraced house you can get a better standard of living for the family.

Work stress is everywhere these days. Every company wants their pound of flesh. In the city you recieve very good compensation for doing that job. I have been to dinner parties where people are talking about the car they've just sold which cost more than my first house (and my forst house was 85K to give you some idea of the price of this car). There is an obscene amount of money in the city. 10 years ago I stood with a friend looking at her trading floor and she waved a hand at the mathmeticians and said "oh they don't get paid very much only about 50 grand". Of course views on money become warped (this friend is from a very very normal background).

Sure working in the city is stressful, work generally is these days anywhere. But living on benefits is also strssful. Also you have a choice whether or not to work in your stressful job - a lot of people on benefits don't have a choice.

BTW if I ever used the WB term it would be with much affection

can I put my tuppence in. I have read this with interest.
If I was chancellor or whoever (bit radical but here goes)

1. accept that people do not mind paying taxes but be fairer ie a small percentage of wage.
2. If a person pays into a private pension or healthcare or their children go to private school reduce their tax and national insurance contributions (why pay twice and also MAKE the pensions SAFE in retirement) 3.Start helping the vulnerable poor ie single parents, elderly, children. third world debt instead of wiping of £££££ get them to pay it back, we all have to pay our bills. I know they are poor but dont lend in the first place if they cannot afford it.It is about time the govt started looking out for its own. 4.asylum seekers genuine needy ones welcome,others can bugger off back!!!Have I raised a snarl on that one or a smile) Also I am not a rascist but I believe in when in rome do as romans, if a person is not a british or commonwealth citizen, they have to accept our laws and rights instead of the govt being so bloody politically correct all the time. 5.get these men who dont work and on benefit one huge kick up the and make THEM work even for there benefit, cleaning the streets or whatever I dont think we care do we girls.I know a great place to place the broom on their anatomy. 6.Create more after/before school clubs provided by local authoritys to encourage more women to go out to work and not worry about childminders. 7.Let mumsnetters run the country, I think we can do a better job than that useless lot.I think we all demonstrate how we can have healthy debates What do you think??????? I hope I have raised a smile.

The basic assumption that those working and paying taxes that are then being paid out to others is somehow unfair is a fairly radical right wing view, and I was wondering if those that feel this way actually feel the same about the basis for such a view.

Do you feel that being taxed in some sort of forced labour for instance? Or that paying into the welfare system is a violation of you basic freedoms?

If you do, do you also feel that your property rights are paramount to another persons right to a basic standard of living? Do you believe that the poor deserve any protection? Or that you have any social responsiblity?

Property rights, and this included the money you earn, are never a stand alone right, they are based upon the integration of the society you live in. To claim that the money you earn is yours alone and no govt has the right to taxation or to distribute those taxes where and only where you wish is unfeasible unless you happen to live on some sort of island.

I'm trying to get hold of the evidence now but am having trouble contacting my source, but from what I know the studies into welfare and proverty show that proverty and dependency on welfare are not long term for the majority of claimants. Infact the the gross population of welfare claimants is in constant flux because the majority of people use it in a time of crisis or at certain life stages and not as a way of life.

Prufock, as to forcing people into govt provided jobs. Presumably the govt would have to pay the minimum wage? So at 40 hours per week that would come to £168 before tax. Currently a claimant on Income support over the age of 22 recieves is £43.25. Presumably you would be happy to see an increase in your taxes to support such a back to work scheme?

Sorry if I have offended anyone with my post, I have meant to be light hearted

I just wanted to add my tuppence worth as a City bank worker. I'm being made redundant from my job at the end of the month and plan to fully avail myself of whatever the welfare state has to offer - not because I deserve it or have contributed loads to it (even though I think I have) but because I need it.

I was on benefits while pregnant but made the decision to go back to work when ds was 8 months old. It was a very difficult decision to make - either be a single SAHM on benefits or work long hours and hardly see ds but get a decent standard of living. To this day I don't know if I made the right choice.

Anyway the point is that at least I had the choice, most single mums on benefits don't and I wouldn't begrudge any of them the paltrey amount of cash that they (and me soon) get.

Well I for one think it's my social responsibility to pay taxes to support people on benefits. I don't care what you earn, it is part of the contract we make as a society to care for those less fortunate than us. And if that means supporting mothers who want to spend the early years with their children rather than working, well I'm all for it. As for the rest of you who earn big salaries and complain that they NEED to, my answer is actually, no you don't. Try downsizing, get a smaller mortgage, move out of London, give up one of your cars and then give up work too. At least you have the option of paid owrk, so many others don't.

Pie - most definately YES I would accept an increase in my taxes to fund a compulsory employment scheme, and to fund a decent wage (at a similar level) for SAHP - oh and people staying at home to look after dependant elderly relatives etc. But I don't actually class those things as benefits. I class them as rewards for work done - even if they are being funded by the state. And I think that it would actually lead to a long term reduction in the welfare bill.

Just a quick interjection - PPH, hate to say it, but £150k is rich by any standards, given that mean income is a bit less than £30k - in fact, £35k pa is pretty well-off (unless you live in London!)

Re benefits, it's all a question of balance and choice. Resources are limited, and there is a limit to taxation. Taxing the "rich" really doesn't raise that much (honestly), so it's up to the middle classes to decide how much they want to redistribute - from this thread, seems we may be reaching that limit?? VAT is good because it's one tax the semi-rich are unlikely to evade (admit that the self-employed are more likely to be able to) - everyone has to buy something, and the more you buy, the more you pay. And actually, by excluding food, the overall impact of VAT is actually not that regressive. If we got rid of alcohol and cigarette duty, it would be even better from an equity point of view but that's another subject...

The truth is, the more benefits you offer, the more people will want to be on them. So there is a trade-off between the poverty alleviating benefits and the disincentive effects. The Govt's focus is on children because rightly so, the poverty trap starts young, and also those areas where people don't have a choice - the old, the disabled, the ill. OK, it could do better (and I think the solution here is not more money but better systems) but that's its stated focus.

Won't say too much more, given my current status as (relatively lowly paid but still not too bad) public sector employee....

I do not think at all that it is unfair that I pay taxes I just feel that people who expect money from the government to be SAHM's are being irresponsible. If you chose to have a child you should be able to support it.

I, if I lost my job, would not have chosen this path and having paid in for a considerable amount of time would actually expect something back - although I am sure it would not be that easy. I also have a partner and so I am sure that he would help in the support of myself and my child.

I cannot remeber who said that they had chosen to have another child as not to put their life on hold - but where is the father? Does he not earn a living? If there is no father about why have you in your situation decided to bring another child into the world?

I am not syaing that all welfare payments should be stopped I just think that people have to realise that it is a safety net - it is not there to enable people to absolve themselves of the financial responsibility of the family and rely on others to pay.

Yes I agree, lose your job, become disabled, have a child that is disabled etc... fine you are a worthy recipicant (worthy being the wrong word I know) but to have children and expect me to fund your staying at home is wrong, your child is not my responsibility and I feel that there are causes I would much rather have my tax spent on.

As we are a democratic society I feel that I should have a say in where my taxes are being spent, I feel that third world dept is a valid point but a lot of that is down to the agricultural policies and subsidies given to farmers in the US and Europe denying lots of countries the market for their products.

I really think that if someone sat down and realigned the government spending all of the factors here could be dealt with.

I have to agree with Prufrock that people outside the City often don't realise quite what the working conditions are like. Yes the salaries are high but of course like any industry, to an extent this reflects the number of people who are willing to put up with the conditions and demands and who also have the ability to do the job.

In the city, within many firms there is no regard for anyone's personal life whatsoever. There is also no job security and of course, in many (if not most) highly paid jobs, there is no role for you after 45 or so. When my father died, I was allowed just one day off - that pretty much sums up the attitude of the firms I have had the misfortune to work for.

This all gets to the point of why raising tax levels above 50% would be unlikely to result in any more tax revenue. The incentive for working in the city is clearly the cash - start taking more than 50% of earnings from people and a hefty proportion of people (particularly those with personal lives) would soon decide that the personal sacrifice just isn't worth it. Remember also that the number of high earners is pretty minuscule - I may be wrong but I think that fewer than 1% of taxpayers earn more than £100,000.

My tax and childcare costs in any case currently add up to 64% of my monthly income. We have no choice but to employ a very expensive nanny because we need someone who is 100% reliable, starts early enough so we can both be at our desks by 7am and is responsible enough to cover for frequent and short notice travel commitments. The main reason I am shortly giving it up is because the amount of money I am left with is totally insufficent to compensate for the stress.

Please forgive me for the rant but at 29 weeks pregnant, I had to take a 6.30am flight to Germany yesterday with only a few hours notice and didn't get home until midnight and yet again was given no opportunity to have lunch. Also, our Nanny's father has recently died and because absence or turning up at 9 isn't considered acceptable, I am into the 4th week of paying for a temporary nanny as well our existing one. The combined cost of this is running at well over £1000 a week. Given that our maternity package is just 6 weeks pay, this is killing us financially.

Today is my 9th last day working in the city ever. I had great plans to celebrate my departure but I have found the last few months so damn hard that I think I will just go home and sob for a few hours instead.

Bells, off topic but just wanted to say I'm sorry it's so horrible atm and that the sad outcome to your nanny dilemma a while back was that her father died. Only 8 more days to go hey? Hang in there and try not to let the b*stards (or bankers ) get you down.

This thread has really caused me to reconsider my attitude.
In the past I have got very annoyed about the long term scroungers who prefer life on the dole to taking responsibility for their life and getting a job. I'm NOT talking about single parents, carers, invalids, disabled etc, just the lazy unemployed types that I used to see when I worked in the Unemployment Benefit Office.
However, this thread has made me realise that these people who abuse the system are a tiny minority and that they are not worth worrying about. The vast majority of benefits help genuine people in need, so I'm glad that the Welfare State is there for them.

sympathy bells2 - hang on in their only 9 days to go....
Just want to add that while living costs/childcare costs are much cheaper in the provinces, so are the salaries, therefore percentage of salaries used for these purposes are the same. City firms are not justthe ones who put high demands on their staff - all companies seem to want their pound of flesh these days. Since my eldest daughter started school I do not come in to work until 8.50 ( I am the only one that does and wow is it frowned upon!) I just don't care anymore because
a) I want to be their for my daughter in the morning
b)I refuse to pay any more out of my hard earned salary towards childcare...
So I've developed a tough skin instaed to those barbed remarks!!

bells2- hate to tell you this but having had a dh who has worked both in and out of the city the working expectations are pretty much the same anywhere. The majority of companies are interested in one thing only- money- that is true whether or not they happen to be dealing with huge city sums, or considerably lower regional sums.

You do have a choice to give up work- and you are choosing to do so (I have no idea why you've stuck it out for so long actually you only live once and all that). I assume your nanny is working long hours- but if your tax and childcare costs add up to 64% of your salary she must be paid considerably less than you. I looked at returning to work after having ds1 (mainly because I loved my job) - I couldn't do it becuase the cost of childcare was more than I earned after tax. So I altered my working a bit (worked Saturdays but gave up otherwise).

I know plenty of city workers and several things have come to be apparent

1. they work long hours (often made long because of the commute though), and professionals in the regions work just as long hours for less money. Doctors also work long hours in stressful jobs but for considerably less money. 2)they get very well rewarded for those hours- very well rewarded.
2. working for the city and having children isn't particularly compatible- most people I know haven't bothered- especially after the second is born.
3. they have a choice. And this is what I don't understand. Why do people stay in the city? Why continue to do it? You don't see your children, you don't have a good quality of life. OK so you can have a big house and sometime 2 (pushing up the prices in viallges so locals can't afford it but that's a different issue). The only reason I can see- to do it is because you want the big pay packet- fine, but you can't really oretend to know what it is like on benefits.

Anyway they have a choice. Said it before will say it again people on benefits usually are on them because they don't have a choice.