Saberu Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Only those with children are rewarded in Britain and Australia, the two nationalities I happen to have. After all it's the only way people can afford the shocking living costs in these countries. Anyone living in the aforementioned countries not having children is being screwed over. My solution as someone not wanting children was to move abroad where living costs are cheaper. I'm not saying people without children should be rewarded, but rather no one should. Then living costs might come down and tax on the low paid could come down too, considering there are hidden taxes on the employer's side when taking on an employee, something like 11% NI? Then the real tax on the employee is huge right now it's just hidden from plain sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_duke_of_hazzard Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I've often wondered: If you have two kids, is there an effective floor on your income (assuming you can easily get a job paying, say, 12K a year), which thereby puts a floor on the mortgage you can afford? I think I worked out that it's between 150/200K on the back of a fag packet, but I'm wondering whether anyone's worked this out properly. I'm tempted to put together a spreadsheet. Since I have savings, it might be worth me buying a house as it's effectively underwritten by the state via the benefits system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Piddle Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 This actually makes me angrier than the other one. He's on the equivalent of 60K a year. And he's using my money (I've got two kids and don't get benefits) to pay down his mortgage early? WTF? Yep, thats socialism :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I've often wondered: If you have two kids, is there an effective floor on your income (assuming you can easily get a job paying, say, 12K a year), which thereby puts a floor on the mortgage you can afford? I think I worked out that it's between 150/200K on the back of a fag packet, but I'm wondering whether anyone's worked this out properly. I'm tempted to put together a spreadsheet. Since I have savings, it might be worth me buying a house as it's effectively underwritten by the state via the benefits system. as ever, affordability and value are not the same thing you could equally say they will rent and buy PMs, so benefiots put a floor under the price of PMs it will not effect house price falls in the long run, actually they will fall lower due to the reduced national productivity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_duke_of_hazzard Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 as ever, affordability and value are not the same thing you could equally say they will rent and buy PMs, so benefiots put a floor under the price of PMs it will not effect house price falls in the long run, actually they will fall lower due to the reduced national productivity Well I've got considerable savings that it's getting harder and harder to get a return on, and am unable to get benefits if my circumstances go to sh1t all of a sudden. So I may as well load up on debt now safe in the knowledge that if it does all go to sh1t for me I'll get to keep the home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarman001 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Only those with children are rewarded in Britain and Australia, the two nationalities I happen to have. After all it's the only way people can afford the shocking living costs in these countries. Anyone living in the aforementioned countries not having children is being screwed over. My solution as someone not wanting children was to move abroad where living costs are cheaper. I'm not saying people without children should be rewarded, but rather no one should. Then living costs might come down and tax on the low paid could come down too, considering there are hidden taxes on the employer's side when taking on an employee, something like 11% NI? Then the real tax on the employee is huge right now it's just hidden from plain sight. Folks always say to me about other countries that there taxes are higher but when you factor in council tax and the like here, there's not much difference. I wont be having my own kids, so I'm worse off than most in the country, would you say? Just what country should I be aiming for? Aren't you off to Oz, didn't you say? But isn't that, like you say, one of those countries that gives you more money for having kids? An extra £20k for benefits is just ridiculous. Sets single, childless men like me at a serious disadvantage, no? I mean, you're not going to be spending all that extra on the kids.... I have a friend with 2 kids and he pockets the majority of the benefits he gets... leaving muggins here stuck in the mud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well I've got considerable savings that it's getting harder and harder to get a return on, and am unable to get benefits if my circumstances go to sh1t all of a sudden. So I may as well load up on debt now safe in the knowledge that if it does all go to sh1t for me I'll get to keep the home. If you buy the house and it does all go to sh1t for you, haven't you in effect given your savings to the government? The house means your savings are paying housing benefit on their behalf. It's why they are pushing Right to Buy again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_duke_of_hazzard Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 If you buy the house and it does all go to sh1t for you, haven't you in effect given your savings to the government? The house means your savings are paying housing benefit on their behalf. It's why they are pushing Right to Buy again. I'm already doing it bit-by-bit through the debasement of the coinage. If I did lose my job etc I'd not qualify for HB because I have savings. I might be able to stuff them into NS&I vehicles (to exclude them from the calculations), but that would entail a slow decline in their value through inflation. Overall it seems less hassle to simply buy the house I want and take the potential hit safe in the knowledge that the government will underwrite the mortgage. I'm starting to wonder if this is the reason HPI has persisted for far longer than I could have imagined possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I might be able to stuff them into NS&I vehicles (to exclude them from the calculations), where does it say they are excluded from benefits calculations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm already doing it bit-by-bit through the debasement of the coinage. If I did lose my job etc I'd not qualify for HB because I have savings. I might be able to stuff them into NS&I vehicles (to exclude them from the calculations), but that would entail a slow decline in their value through inflation. Overall it seems less hassle to simply buy the house I want and take the potential hit safe in the knowledge that the government will underwrite the mortgage. I'm starting to wonder if this is the reason HPI has persisted for far longer than I could have imagined possible. NS&I wouldn't be excluded. What if they cannot print money forever? If they had to stop, interest rates would no longer be artificially suppressed, not good if you were loaded up on debt? I keep thinking the best way for banks to make money now is to load people up on debt over the next year or two - then the rug is pulled - interest rates go up and they rake it in. House prices would fall but the banks have been demanding larger deposits and are now pushing lending risk on to councils/government mortgage indemnity. Of course I'm like you and have savings so WANT interest rates to rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarman001 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 where does it say they are excluded from benefits calculations? DAMN! For a second I thought there may have been a way around it lol.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1swellfoop Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Stick your savings in a SIPP or other pension and they don't count as savings for benefits though ( and they'll even add another 20% to it for you). Obviously you can't then touch it until retirement age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Buy sovereigns, just don't buy more than £1000.00 worth at any time. They have a face value of £1.00, you can then quite truthfully fill in the benefit forms stating savings of less than £6000.00 truthfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Stick your savings in a SIPP or other pension and they don't count as savings for benefits though ( and they'll even add another 20% to it for you). Obviously you can't then touch it until retirement age. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_duke_of_hazzard Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 where does it say they are excluded from benefits calculations? Dwp benefits calculator website. Am on the note now will try and post anon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Where does the social unrest come from in my scenario? Person on benefits = £x Person on benefits gets job paying £y Outcome = £x - (£y/2) + £y (with the obvious caveat that $x - (£y/2) has a lower limit of 0) Can't you see what will happen with your scenario? Anyone currently on benefits gets a job and they're happy since they now have a wage and get to keep half their benefit as well. Someone who is already working will see that the newly hired, previously unemployed person working in the same job as him is earning more than him because he is still getting benefits. This would give an incentive for someone to lose their job and go on benefits for a while and then reapply for their old job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Can't you see what will happen with your scenario? Anyone currently on benefits gets a job and they're happy since they now have a wage and get to keep half their benefit as well. Someone who is already working will see that the newly hired, previously unemployed person working in the same job as him is earning more than him because he is still getting benefits. This would give an incentive for someone to lose their job and go on benefits for a while and then reapply for their old job. It would be a perverse incentive for the 'price system', perhaps forcing wages up and overall employment down, as everyone exited and re-entered the market. If UC was more of a citizens income, such perverse incentive would be removed. Overall wages could fall, employment rise, and productivity and living standards rise (wage inflation with price stagnation of consumables) One would always be better off. And by doing productive work one benefits all. WIN WIN. A family member of mine work in a call centre selling goods via interest bearing credit, he is merely a purveyor of usury. The peddled debt stimulates production and consumption bu what he does is in no way productive. What he proposes is better than the current system. It does not remove all perverse incentives, but it removes many. It is a step in the direction. Working tax credit could be seen as that also, with the transition to UC and then CI. As it stands, many get more in benefit for working via tax credits (benefits), than they would if they did not. Some only get a small kickback, it depends upon the household and the particular forms of tax-welfare it faces wrt it's employment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saberu Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Folks always say to me about other countries that there taxes are higher but when you factor in council tax and the like here, there's not much difference. I wont be having my own kids, so I'm worse off than most in the country, would you say? Just what country should I be aiming for? Aren't you off to Oz, didn't you say? But isn't that, like you say, one of those countries that gives you more money for having kids? Oz is my backup plan. If my business isn't successful I will go to Oz and join the army. Including all the benefits it gives like subsidy towards your rent (they pay like 60% of it) I worked out I could be on the equivalent of around 50,000 pounds/ year NET salary, in the UK you would need to be earning 73,000 before tax to be on that. It's a 4 year minimum service so I'd probably try and save around 100,000 pounds over 4 years which is enough money to make any business successful unless you are stupid. My friend said only super tough guys can handle the army so if that's true and I end up dropping out then I'll just sprog some kids and live off the benefits. But I have a feeling he's talking bull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saberu Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I'm already doing it bit-by-bit through the debasement of the coinage. Unless you have a job you really love then the smart thing to do would be to keep your savings abroad in a currency which isn't being debased then quit your job, claim housing benefit/ benefits. Result is government pay for your house, and pay you enough money to have a good lifestyle which you can then secretly top off with ATM withdrawals from your overseas account. Your living standards would signficantly increase because you would still be making good money but have all the time in the world to spend with family and friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie568 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Quite, but if you add the charity and saving for a holiday that's £767 per calendar month in disposable income. I have to say that is rather good, and probably equivalent to my disposable income yet I'm single with no kids. That is with a much smaller monthly mortgage (nearly half the amount) and I earn about 35% more in net income. It seems that a single person with no children is deemed a less than satisfactory citizen by the ruling classes, if the way the taxes get distributed are anything to go by. Welcome to 21st century Britain, where single people without children get to pay for other people's children. There's a guy along the road from us, works four nights a week at one of the local supermarkets stacking shelves. His wife works a couple of days a week as a teaching assistant. They have five children and are thinking of having a sixth. They have quite a nice home, only 4 bedroom, but there aren't all that many 5 or 6 bedroom places around where we live. 90% of their rent is paid by the state. Their main source of income is benefits. I haven't checked this out, but apparently working families, even if they are part time, aren't subject to the £26k a year cap. He doesn't work full time because he doesn't want to. Nor would I with 5 children. I can completely understand his actions with regards to benefits and think him sensible to claim everything he is entitled to and work little enough so his family have a decent quality of life. But a government who insists on aiding and abetting those who are happy to have children they can't afford, not just at other taxpayer's expense but spending beyond their means to the tune of £8 billion a month? Madness. Utter madness. I'd rather we all tolerate a bit more poverty than we are used to if that is what it takes for the government to live within its means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xurbia Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Benefit families speak out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16876486 Father-of-five Ade, like Raymond, is happy to detail his income and expenditure. But unlike unemployed Raymond, who has not worked for more than a decade, Ade works as a full-time systems analyst, on take-home pay of £20,592. But because he and his wife Christine have a large family, including a child with autism, the couple are also entitled to a range of benefits that boosts their income to £40,874 a year. Like millions of other British families they fund their lifestyle on a mixture of wages and benefits. And that means - despite Ade's relatively modest income (just above the UK median salary) - they are able to run two cars and take a low-cost annual holiday with their children. The family's biggest outgoing is the mortgage on their home, a three-bedroom end-of-terrace. But, says Ade: "One day we will own it outright so it's not wasted money." Ade says: "We live a very easy life. We are pretty happy with what we have." "Once I handled a claim from someone who had not worked in 18 years. It was then I decided to leave the agency," he says I knew people were taking the p1ss in Britain but this guy has hit the jackpot and has doubled his income. It sounds like he's gaming the system. If I'd been working as a systems analyst for over 10 years I'd expect a bit more than 20k. He must be completely hopeless at his job. Benefits are allowing him to run 2 cars and he declares he's got an easy life. Well done you Ade. Bleed 'em dry mate. I love the audacity of the man complaining about someone having not worked in 18 years. Meanwhile Ade (or public Ade, as he's known to his friend the bishop) has knocked out too many children to feed and is giving the taxpayer money to the church. What an inspirational story this is. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xurbia Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Welcome to 21st century Britain, where single people without children get to pay for other people's children. I can completely understand his actions with regards to benefits and think him sensible to claim everything he is entitled to and work little enough so his family have a decent quality of life. But a government who insists on aiding and abetting those who are happy to have children they can't afford, not just at other taxpayer's expense but spending beyond their means to the tune of £8 billion a month? Madness. Utter madness. I'd rather we all tolerate a bit more poverty than we are used to if that is what it takes for the government to live within its means. Britain only turned into this type of toilet in the last 15 years. I don't remember anyone wanting to be unemployed or claim benefits before that. You mention "entitled" and "poverty". I don't believe anyone is entitled to take taxpayers' cash without being impoverished. This idiot in the paper is running 2 cars and giving money away to the church. He wouldn't understand poverty if it hit him. Society has accepted that hardworkers now fund lazy people. It cannot go on for ever but it will be interesting how it ends. I see a time when all useful individuals have left the country. It will be a crazy situation. You'll have loads of old pensioners. The ones who worked hard will give all their money to the lazy ones, so everyone is as badly off as each other. Then you'll have all the young people, who are too stupid to leave, looking after them all. Everyone will truly know what poverty is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermany Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Isn't the benefits system just an acknowledgement of the facts: 1. The cost of living has risen beyond the reach of the average salary. 2. Without large helpings of benefits there would be a lot of poverty and a long hard recession/depression. 3. Benefits are needed to subsidize high house prices. Average wage of 20k doesn't get or pay a mortgage. Add in 20k of benefits=40k=no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Can't you see what will happen with your scenario? Anyone currently on benefits gets a job and they're happy since they now have a wage and get to keep half their benefit as well. Someone who is already working will see that the newly hired, previously unemployed person working in the same job as him is earning more than him because he is still getting benefits. This would give an incentive for someone to lose their job and go on benefits for a while and then reapply for their old job. I can think of various mechanisms/caveats that should prevent that, but you're probably right. Screw it - lets just go for a citizen's income and keep it simple ('simple' being a concept apparently alien to our betters). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Is this chap mis-representing how much he's actualloy getting? Income = £20k Benefits = £20k, however this is equivalent to something around £30k as a take-home salary Therefore total income is somewhere nearer £50k, with his disposableincome at something nearer £30k total. (that's not including the employer contributions, or the empoyer contributions that have been 'missed' by paying benefits...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.