Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Working And On Benefits


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#91 aSecureTenant

aSecureTenant

    Formerly Socially Housed and 'Steed'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,107 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire
  • About Me:Smashing it to LibLabCon & the NIMBY's

Posted 22 February 2012 - 06:15 PM

Breeding potential future taxpayers is rewarded?


Its the 218 a week for two kids that gets me. Whereas a singleton over 25 gets just 65 a week on JSA, or 55 if under 25, and has to run his whole household (food, energy, clothing, transport etc..) and possibly contribute to rent out of it his LHA rate isn't high enough or it includes services.

Edited by "Steed", 22 February 2012 - 06:18 PM.

"Capitalism has defeated communism. It is now well on its way to defeating democracy" ~ David Korten

“To think output and income can be raised by increasing the quantity of money, is like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt” ~ John Maynard Keynes 

 

Ignoring ALL UKIP and 'Election' threads on HPC until further notice


#92 guitarman001

guitarman001

    HPC Guru

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,908 posts
  • Location:Edimbourg

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

Are there any single childless guys here who still plan on staying, and why?

#93 easy2012

easy2012

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,719 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:45 PM

Are there any single childless guys here who still plan on staying, and why?



It is all relative I suppose... childless Spaniard, Greek, Czech, Hungarian are pretty happy here..

#94 8 year itch

8 year itch

    I am not an INTJ

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,688 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:51 PM

Its the 218 a week for two kids that gets me. Whereas a singleton over 25 gets just 65 a week on JSA, or 55 if under 25, and has to run his whole household (food, energy, clothing, transport etc..) and possibly contribute to rent out of it his LHA rate isn't high enough or it includes services.

5 kids, one of them disabled?

There is no ladder.

JY


No need to sell up, the next phase of the economics cycle is going to be very positive for anyone that owns property.

All I'm sayings is, don't listen to the property bears people, they are wrong.


#95 aSecureTenant

aSecureTenant

    Formerly Socially Housed and 'Steed'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,107 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire
  • About Me:Smashing it to LibLabCon & the NIMBY's

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:53 PM

5 kids, one of them disabled?


oops my bad. Thought it seemed generous!

"Capitalism has defeated communism. It is now well on its way to defeating democracy" ~ David Korten

“To think output and income can be raised by increasing the quantity of money, is like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt” ~ John Maynard Keynes 

 

Ignoring ALL UKIP and 'Election' threads on HPC until further notice


#96 Dorkins

Dorkins

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,658 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:08 PM

Breeding potential future taxpayers is rewarded?


As if any government thinks that far ahead...

If you want to assign the government a motive, I think vote-buying will suffice.

Edited by Dorkins, 22 February 2012 - 08:11 PM.


#97 winkie

winkie

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,499 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:21 PM

As if any government thinks that far ahead...

If you want to assign the government a motive, I think vote-buying will suffice.



...not when the kids grow up to find they will not be able to afford to buy or rent a property, and the parents finding the benefits cease but the kids are still living with them. ;)
What you don't owe won't worry you.

Less can be more.

#98 Debbie568

Debbie568

    HPC Regular

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:33 AM

Absolutely agree. there is no cause whatsoever to vilify those who are just following the rules that have been drafted by the political establishment. In any case, the real"beneficiaries" are owners of land and property. The benefits keep the property values up by ensuring that families on low incomes can service large mortgages. The money is being siphoned from the young, the single, and those in rented accommodation and being fed to those who have property portfolios. The actual claimants are just blameless intermediaries in the process of theft.


Are claimants entirely blameless though? What about people who deliberately restrict their economic activities in order to protect their benefits? We're breeding children like mad for sure, but children who don't have much ambition, who don't have much get up and go, let alone entrepreneurial spirit, because they realise it doesn't matter, provided they have children, how much or little they earn - if a bit low, no worries, other taxpayers will mandatorily make up the difference.

Tony Blair used to parrot on about how essential it was to support the self employed via the minimum income guarantee, because if just one in a thousand of those fledgling businesses becomes an employer of five people, all the subsidies via the minimum income guarantee will be well worth it. The current government have made it very clear that the 26k benefits cap does not apply to people claiming working tax credit and in particular to the self employed. But they don't understand the reality of being self employed and having a family. There are massive financial incentives to not work too hard in Britain if you have children.

Here's the deal;

If you earn 50k a year, and refuse to have children, then I want my take. I get 14,389 in NI contributions and tax and you get the other 35,610. For that you have to work 50-60 hours a week and throw in ten hours or so of commuting time on top. And no, you don't get housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit, working tax credit, child tax credit, help with your childcare costs, free dental, a health card (for free prescriptions in England), free school meals (for the working poor, Scotland), EMA for your older children (Scotland also) etc, etc, etc.

If, on the other hand, you agree to work 30 hours a week, have a couple of children, be self employed and only earn a net income of 7,000 a year then you get to keep all of it AND I'll throw in another 23,600 as a sweetener, tax free. (HB 700 a month LHA, three bedroom house in our area, WTC/CTC 10,400 a year, Child benefit 1,600 a year, council tax benefit 1,500 a year (average rate for a house in our area), EMA if any of your children are over 16 and in school 30 a week for 41 weeks, 400 or so free dental, 100 a year or so free prescription glasses + a few other things I probably haven't thought of, like childcare subsidies)

So far, you are well up on the hours but well behind the 50k a year person? Yes, but what if I told you that your 7k net profit is AFTER claiming 40p a mile for your business mileage (usually well and truly enough to cover the private mileage too), the cost of your mobile phone, your home office, some portion of your broadband, replacement/upgrade of your computer, whatever knowledge maintenance seminars you feel like attending to keep your knowledge current, borrowing costs that you "need" to incur in order to upgrade whatever you need to upgrade for your business, your car perhaps, or your boat if you are starting up a charter fishing business - best to lease those, actually, then you can deduct the costs if full.....

AND if you will just go ahead and have another child, I will seriously sweeten the deal. I'll give you another 3,500 or so tax free a year, possibly (dependant on ages and sexes of the tribe) give you funding for a four bedroom, rather than a three bedroom house, and you can earn a bit more profit after tax.

With deals like this, I still don't think people should deliberately restrict their working hours and incomes - their potential - just to get such deals. But I can understand why they would.

The prevailing view pushed by the media is that Britain will never end up like Greece. But surely there must come a point where, if we spend beyond our means to the tune of 8 billion a month, we end up either unable to pay our debts or with a currency so depleted in value we end up like Zimbabwe? Greeks are currently pounding the doors of foreign embassies trying to escape Greece with their wealth intact, before it is either kicked out of the Euro or the Euro tanks to reflect the banana republic Greece has become. Is the UK really so different?

#99 Debbie568

Debbie568

    HPC Regular

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:35 AM

...not when the kids grow up to find they will not be able to afford to buy or rent a property, and the parents finding the benefits cease but the kids are still living with them. ;)


Does anything really change in that situation? If the kids are working they will pay board. if they are not they will get their JSA income based and presumably make a contribution from that to the running costs of the family. I thought unemployed children living at home count as eligible adults for housing benefit?

#100 Dave Beans

Dave Beans

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,243 posts
  • Location:Somerset
  • About Me:Groping The Sands Of Time

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:38 AM

Does anything really change in that situation? If the kids are working they will pay board. if they are not they will get their JSA income based and presumably make a contribution from that to the running costs of the family. I thought unemployed children living at home count as eligible adults for housing benefit?


Nope. If they are living with a relative/parents, they aren't eligible for HB...

Edited by Dave Beans, 23 February 2012 - 01:39 AM.

"Wont someone please think of the children"

The Sad Faces Of Wronged Mail Readers

Eurocleese De Zouch

#101 Debbie568

Debbie568

    HPC Regular

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:59 AM

Nope. If they are living with a relative/parents, they aren't eligible for HB...


It's not the children who can claim. The parents' HB is in part based on whether anyone is living with you who could contribute to the rent, and I think unemployed children are deemed unable to contribute to the rent if they are on JSA. This from the DWP:

"No deduction should be made from your rent rebate or allowance if the non-dependant (i.e. grown up son or daughter) is under 25 and on Income Support or income based JSA."

This would presumably be the case if they leave school and become unemployed. (source: http://www.dwp.gov.u...non-dependants/)

#102 Dave Beans

Dave Beans

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,243 posts
  • Location:Somerset
  • About Me:Groping The Sands Of Time

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:07 AM

It's not the children who can claim. The parents' HB is in part based on whether anyone is living with you who could contribute to the rent, and I think unemployed children are deemed unable to contribute to the rent if they are on JSA. This from the DWP:

"No deduction should be made from your rent rebate or allowance if the non-dependant (i.e. grown up son or daughter) is under 25 and on Income Support or income based JSA."

This would presumably be the case if they leave school and become unemployed. (source: http://www.dwp.gov.u...non-dependants/)


I was basically in the same position, and the DWP told me my parents weren't entitled to anything, only 25% off council tax.
"Wont someone please think of the children"

The Sad Faces Of Wronged Mail Readers

Eurocleese De Zouch

#103 Debbie568

Debbie568

    HPC Regular

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:13 AM

I was basically in the same position, and the DWP told me my parents weren't entitled to anything, only 25% off council tax.


Well, they would, wouldn't they! This is the same DWP that tells returning British citizens looking for work that don't have a national insurance number, presumably because they left when they were younger than 16, that they are "not entitled to one". In my experience, the DWP lie about everything, all in an effort to stop people claiming what they are entitled to. I don't trust a thing the DWP say, nor their proxies, the local councils. It's better to refer to the relevant sections of the Housing Act.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users