A worker on £40k per year is £39 pw better off than his unemployed counterpart.

[orwellian]

I find this astounding.

A nuclear family in one of the outer London boroughs (2 parents, 2 kids) with husband sole breadwinner will have an income of £30,007 (£577 per week) on a £40k wage plus child benefit of £1,750 per year or £33 per week. Council tax is approx £30 pw. A travelcard from zone 4 into town is £43.60 per week.
Pay in full for school meals.
Pay in full for prescriptions.

Weekly total (minus council tax and travelcard) of: £536.

A nuclear family where both parents are unemployed in London would get;

child benefit x 2: £33
child tax credits x 2: £115
2 bedroom LHA allowance (outer London) of: £236 or 3 bed if children are different sexes and over a certain age: £300
income support/jobseekers allowance: £112.55.
No or little council tax to pay.
Free school meals.
Free prescriptions.

Weekly total of: £497 (2 children both same sex) or £560 (if different sexes or one over ten).

So, the household with one earner on £40k per week is at the most £39 a week better off than their unemployed counterpart and the unemployed family is not affected by the benefit cap unless they claim the 3 bedroom rate of LHA.

Work really doesn't pay does it.

If the OP is right, then its thoroughly very fucking depressing. This country is fucked up.

Also I read some where that a large portion of people using the food banks are workers - don't know if that's true...

When I was on my own with DD1, worked and claimed tax credits ,housing credits and council tax- I was financially better off than me and DH are now and we both work.

It doesn't pay to work or go straight these days.

Here if you stay at home its 99% you have no prospects, have to live in rented insecure housing and low disposable income. Not something I envy even though they get large amounts on paper they have no assets, no security, no control and its not an enviable lifestyle like the op suggests.

Also they might get housing benefit now but once their children leave they will be living in a tiny awful dump. It doesnt sound that appealing.

I don't think anyone is suggesting being workless is an enviable lifestyle are they? I think a lot of people would agree that it should not pay the same or more than working though.

MrsDeVere - why is the money not in your hand on benefits? I accept that housing benefit isn't but then for the average worker the money comes in and straight out for housing so effectively they don't really see that part either.

I do know quite a number of people who have made the choice to be on benefits actually. They don't have it easy and I am not one to say that benefits are too high, or blame people for being on benefits. It is hugely more complicated than that and usually there is no choice due to a shortage of jobs or disability. However there are a number of people who do choose it and that is fact. I stress that it isnt that benefits are too high - it is that the cost of living is too high for wages.

It is an interesting point about people not giving up their jobs and living on benefits though. I suppose there is a small band of people who for whom it would be worthwhile - according to this thread it appears that those with a family income of just below £40k would be the ones who could justify it. In real terms there are probably few families on that as it is a difficult amount to manage on as we have ascertained so the second person works and then the family income is higher and it would be impossible to give up and go onto benefits. If you are on considerably lower than that then you get tax credits which bumps the income up a bit.

I suppose there is also the justified fear of the future. At least in work it is easier to keep in work and you are not reliant on the governmental whims.

Lots of working people have to live in insecure rented accommodation too!

The good thing about working is getting my wages for the month together rather than in dribs and drabs on different days weekly.

What annoys me the most is comments from people who 'earn' less than me but I know get housing benefit and tax credits and are taking home the same as me.

If I mention this then I'm benefit bashing

They have it easy now but I have friends that have moved out and their parents lose all the cb and tax creds are moved in to awful dumps can only get minimum wage horrible jobs and are in their 40s and 50s. Would you honestly swap to live like that? I would rather work full time and not have that happen to me.

It does pay to work if you will progress and get more. I used to live in London, earned a low wage, and I was worse off than my friend on benefits. Especially when you take into account the costs of working - travel, suitable clothes that I otherwise wouldn't have bought.

But I progressed to a better wage. For those who stay on minimum wage or just above, no it usually doesn't pay to work financially.

And just want to point out, loads of people that work do not own their own home and probably never will.

Here if you stay at home its 99% you have no prospects, have to live in rented insecure housing and low disposable income. Not something I envy even though they get large amounts on paper they have no assets, no security, no control and its not an enviable lifestyle like the op suggests.

But the family on £40k have the same situation as their income is practically the same according to these figures. And they have the cost of working, no free school meals, no free dentist, no free prescriptions, no free school trips etc etc.

Nobody is saying that people on benefits have it good. In fact this has been the least benefit bashing thread i have seen. They are saying that workers on £40k have it bad too.

I dont know about that but we are on 32-34k and we have our own place, modern car, foriegn holiday etc. Most of my friends dont both work full time and are on benefits and dont have the same as us.

This article says that in 2012, the typical family income in London was just under £35,000.

www.theguardian.com/money/2012/mar/28/families-52000-income-london-rent

Sorry. The £35,00 is typical household income. Not the same as typical family income.

Middleagedwoman - what you say is correct if you can earn well over £40k (as per ops post).

A lot of jobs will never pay that however hard you work or however many promotions you get.

I do get that the people on benefits are likelyto be in a worse position than workers when their children leave home though.

But work is getting more and more difficult to find, and I know many people who have lost their jobs in their 50s and are now working on minimum wage doing things like security as they can't find anything else. They may find that once again they are not much better off than those on benefits in that situation.

Yes frog, I know plenty of people who have lost jobs in their 40's and 50's as well, and getting another job as you get older, gets harder and harder.

All of you saying that the workers may (one day, with a fair wind, or, if they are older, were lucky and bought a while back) own their own home are not factoring in the big whammy that is around the corner ...

... I reckon many, many home-owners are going to end up selling their houses - and losing a lot of the equity in them - to pay for care in old age.

I think that by the time our generation hits old age there are going to be few, if any, curbs on how much you pay and the reality for home-owners is going to be paying, a lot.

I'm not terribly well at the moment, and I do find that feeling poorly tends to make me see the world (and the future) through a slightly darker set of glasses ... but I do find I worry about what things are going to be like by the time I become vulnerable through old age.

Exactly mrsdevere mortgages are considerably cheaper than renting and its yours forever. You wont have that if you were on benefits.

Olive - I have no idea how you manage to buy a house, have a newish car, a foreign holiday on less than £35k! We get a lot more than that and couldn't do it.

Do you get tax credits or is that your true family income?

DeVere - Loads of working people rent. Their wage also goes to the landlord. Someone on this wage is unlikely to be able to afford to buy in London. So it is comparing like with like.

This isn't bashing people on benefits. Lots have no choice. But I have known people who are long term unemployed who are shocked when they find out they are not much better off.

We have tax credits towards childcare but not enough to cover it other than that no. We dont really need any more.

A poster further up the thread mentioned that she thought many of those using foodbanks were working. I heard that in a radio report too. I am not even a little surprised.

I begrudge those on benefits absolutely nothing. I would never want benefits reduced: why would I want a world even worse for my children? where there is even less to prevent them being exploited?

But there is something seriously wrong about the cost of living and wages.

This thread is depressing.

Why 40k single earner? That's surely not an average family.

I live in Edinburgh. You could live well on 40k as a singleton, and decently as a couple. If you want (not unreasonable IMO) to own a 3-4 bed family home and look after a couple of kids, 40k means you're moving out to the sticks.

I have friends on HB. The increased Edinburgh prices haven't benefited them personally (central sure, shitholes also) to the extent that several when on the CH list and took better accomodation in shitty estates rather than pay a slum landlord. Of course they didn't have 8 kids and there's always the exception the DM likes to publicise. Most people I know (and I know plenty) on benefits don't have a life that I would envy, regardless of the size of their tellie.

We take home more than twice 40k FWIW, have a 'standard family home' 3 miles out and are comfortable but still have to be careful and by no means rolling in it. So no, 1 family living off a single earner on 40k in central London is not well off even if the individual is moderately successful - irrelevant if we're talking about the overall family, kids situtation etc.?

The average salary in London is £46,000.

In 2011, the median salary in London was £27,560. Meaning 50 % of workers earned less than £27,560, and 50% earned more.

So no, £40,000 is not really a low wage in London for a single earner.

I think those who are well off, usually have no idea how most people live. The rate of personal debt, and the amount of people with arrears in rents and mortgages who are working, is relatively high.

Lots and lots of people out there are really really struggling.