Jrf Reports From Bbc : Most People Classed As Being In Poverty 'have Job'

[rockhopper]

a report appears to have been published by the JRF and written by the

New Policy Institute , which has featured on the bbc news today which

says that "More working households were living in poverty in the UK last year

than non-working ones "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25287068

The bbc report says : Ministers insisted that work remained the best route out

of poverty and said the government's welfare reforms would further encourage

people to get a job. (but not get out of poverty?)

I caught this on the bbc Breakfast show and they had some twonk from the

New Policy Institute on and the presenter said someone had phoned in

and asked if immigration was responsible .... cant remember the precise

response but it was something along the lines that, that had nothing

to do with it.

It was on again on the 5oclock news and they had a bbc bod (?) being quizzed

by the presenter and he was saying that wages had not kept up with

productivity , cost of living and this was down to weak labour markets

and what we needed was more growth ... and much more similar waffle .

No mention of the 'I' word . Clearly immigration has had nothing whatsoever

to do with the 'weak labour market' oh no.

strangely could not see this referenced on the gruaniad site.

I leave Oracle to draw the obvious conclusions.

I dont know how they expect a hpi (to boost the economy) to work if so many people are

classified as poor ... in my cookie collection (wow - found something in it!) :

As Joseph Stiglitz pointed out recently,

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations,

the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing

that money doesn't seem to have bought: an understanding that their

fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history,

this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

--------------------------------------

Many are called, few are chosen.

Fewer still get to do the choosing.

[JonathanR]

If there are 13 million people in poverty and only 2.5 million unemployed that leaves 10.5 million who are either working or pensioners, and of the 2.5 million unemployed the families/single-mums with children get a lot of benefits. So it doesn't surprise that at least 6.5 million people in "poverty" are working. Also "poverty" doesn't mean people can't afford to eat. It just means they aren't earning at least 60% of the average wage. Fuel poverty is defined as spending at least 10% of your income on fuel, to show you how ridiculous that measure is: the queen was almost in fuel poverty a couple of years ago.

Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace

Soaring prices push Queen close to ‘fuel poverty’

[Si1]

I wonder if they are claiming their full complement of available subsidies, tax credits, housing benefits etc?

[byron78]

Not surprised.

Aside from those (rare) exceptional very large benefit families (the single-mum's with loads of kids the Daily Mail likes to try and convince everyone is the norm), the only people on benefits better off than those out of work are probably the pensioners (and the "farmers" like Ian Duncan Myths in-laws, or landowners with windmills on them a la David Cameron's dad-in-law sucking up the state subsidies that for some reason aren't classified as benefits of course).

Of course most of our "poor" will be working. Most of our benefit claimants are working aren't they? There are lots of part time jobs about but very few full time ones.

Edited December 8, 2013 by byron78

[durhamborn]

Tax credits encourage people to work part time in NMW jobs and do as little as possible,

Then when the youngest hits 19 and you lose tax credits you fall into poverty for 25 years as you didn't progress because it wasn't worth it.

Tax credits simply delay poverty while children are under 19.Then they make the poverty much much worse than it would of been.The tax then paying for the next batch of tax credit claims makes it even worse.

This was the poverty trap Labour set for so many people.I told Labour MPs this when Brown brought them in.Within 15 years the poverty figures would shoot up for people without dependant children as they fell out of the tax credit system and were on NMW due to that tax credit system.

These figures confirm just that.They will get worse.

Of course all the benefit cuts like bedroom tax,pension age pushed out etc hammer this very group hardest.Tax credits were the worst thing to ever happen to working people,,and they don't understand why.

[pmf170170]

Tax credits encourage people to work part time in NMW jobs and do as little as possible,

Then when the youngest hits 19 and you lose tax credits you fall into poverty for 25 years as you didn't progress because it wasn't worth it.

Tax credits simply delay poverty while children are under 19.Then they make the poverty much much worse than it would of been.The tax then paying for the next batch of tax credit claims makes it even worse.

This was the poverty trap Labour set for so many people.I told Labour MPs this when Brown brought them in.Within 15 years the poverty figures would shoot up for people without dependant children as they fell out of the tax credit system and were on NMW due to that tax credit system.

These figures confirm just that.They will get worse.

Of course all the benefit cuts like bedroom tax,pension age pushed out etc hammer this very group hardest.Tax credits were the worst thing to ever happen to working people,,and they don't understand why.

I've never thought about this before but you as spot on. I don't suppose that the MPs could understand your point and if they did, didn't escalate it upwards to the policy makers.

[MongerOfDoom]

The only relevant fact in the article is that 13 millon people live on less than 60% of the median income. By that definition we would still have the poor if everyones income doubled, tripled, quadrupled, etc. Lots of those "poor" will likely be asset rich beyond the dreams of the supposedly wealthy part of the population.

[winkie]

Tax credits encourage people to work part time in NMW jobs and do as little as possible,

Then when the youngest hits 19 and you lose tax credits you fall into poverty for 25 years as you didn't progress because it wasn't worth it.

Tax credits simply delay poverty while children are under 19.Then they make the poverty much much worse than it would of been.The tax then paying for the next batch of tax credit claims makes it even worse.

This was the poverty trap Labour set for so many people.I told Labour MPs this when Brown brought them in.Within 15 years the poverty figures would shoot up for people without dependant children as they fell out of the tax credit system and were on NMW due to that tax credit system.

These figures confirm just that.They will get worse.

Of course all the benefit cuts like bedroom tax,pension age pushed out etc hammer this very group hardest.Tax credits were the worst thing to ever happen to working people,,and they don't understand why.

Yes, tax credits were designed to fill the gap, when the real problem is the cost of living inflation that has grown well ahead of a huge tranche of earnings over the last 20 to 30 years.....tax credits are an employer subsidy allowing them to pay lower wages knowing will be topped up by the tax payers.

Children soon grow up and grown up children not in training (clocking up study debt)or working to pay their keep are more expensive to maintain than small children......young adults without a home, transport or a job have been the hardest hit of all.

[Damik]

Tax credits encourage people to work part time in NMW jobs and do as little as possible,

It is the whole point of the socialism. To equalise differences between people. So irrespectively of your job and skills you are always paid the same.

We had the same policy in the Eastern Europe before 1990. E.g. a company director was paid almost the same as a worker and lived in the similar accommodation. My father in low still thinks it was the best. He was the worker ...

Also it is an absolute vote winner as the people earning less than average are benefiting the most. Therefore it will be never canceled.

[byron78]

It is the whole point of the socialism. To equalise differences between people. So irrespectively of your job and skills you are always paid the same.

We had the same policy in the Eastern Europe before 1990. E.g. a company director was paid almost the same as a worker and lived in the similar accommodation. My father in low still thinks it was the best. He was the worker ...

Also it is an absolute vote winner as the people earning less than average are benefiting the most. Therefore it will be never canceled.

I think we've been going the other way since the 80s over here.

Wages between the workers and those at the top have never been further apart.

Not sure skill always comes into it either. Nepotism and a private school education seem to help.

[Niall of the Nine Hostages]

Tax credits encourage people to work part time in NMW jobs and do as little as possible,

Then when the youngest hits 19 and you lose tax credits you fall into poverty for 25 years as you didn't progress because it wasn't worth it.

Tax credits simply delay poverty while children are under 19.Then they make the poverty much much worse than it would of been.The tax then paying for the next batch of tax credit claims makes it even worse.

This was the poverty trap Labour set for so many people.I told Labour MPs this when Brown brought them in.Within 15 years the poverty figures would shoot up for people without dependant children as they fell out of the tax credit system and were on NMW due to that tax credit system.

These figures confirm just that.They will get worse.

Of course all the benefit cuts like bedroom tax,pension age pushed out etc hammer this very group hardest.Tax credits were the worst thing to ever happen to working people,,and they don't understand why.

What you need to do then is to keep on having kids, so you've always got kids under 18 - right?

Tell me,if I went to India and spent 17 grand on a surrogate mother having another kid for me, would I get my money back in benefits, assuming I never worked again?

[Niall of the Nine Hostages]

Bump

[Niall of the Nine Hostages]

Theres a lot of people here who seem to know a lot about how the benefits system works.

I am sort of unemployed. But it seems I can't claim benefits because my wife earns too much. I think I could claim job seekers allowance but after 6 months it would be means tested and because of my wife's earnings that'll be the end of that.

I can't claim housing benefit because we're classed as a couple.

But it is entirely possible I'll never be offered a job again, because of my age and a bunch of other reasons.

So, could someone tell me, if I went to India and spent 17 grand on a surrogate mother having another kid for me, would I get my money back in benefits, assuming I never worked again?

Would me wife earning too much mean this wouldn't work?

I liked being a dad. If I don't work again, perhaps this'll keep me sorted until I reach retirement age.

Seriously, why not?

Apparently we aren't producing enough kids, which is given as one of the reasons we have to import loads of people.

I'd be doing my bit for Britain

[winkie]

Bump

They have worked it so that you need some type of job, any job, doing anything productive or non productive like digging holes and filling them in to claim benefits now....they call it making/creating work pays....people who do not work for tokens are unfit for human habitation, they are not worth the paper they are written on....useless pieces of work.

[Niall of the Nine Hostages]

They have worked it so that you need some type of job, any job, doing anything productive or non productive like digging holes and filling them in to claim benefits now....they call it making/creating work pays....people who do not work for tokens are unfit for human habitation, they are not worth the paper they are written on....useless pieces of work.

One of the things I noticed people writing here, is that the clever thing to do, is to be 'self-employed', which I sort of am.

But I think again, I can't make this work to my benefit because my wife earns too much - right?

[winkie]

One of the things I noticed people writing here, is that the clever thing to do, is to be 'self-employed', which I sort of am.

But I think again, I can't make this work to my benefit because my wife earns too much - right?

....if you jointly earn too much you can't claim benefits....only right and fair.

[workingpoor]

A lot of couples "split up" for benefit reasons I've heard don't know how true it is.

[Niall of the Nine Hostages]

....if you jointly earn too much you can't claim benefits....only right and fair.

Hmmnnn... Still, I think that having another kid via an Indian surrogate might be a good insurance policy if my wife were to find herself out of work

Shes not getting any younger either.

For 17K you get an 18 year insurance policy in the event of both of you being out of work and you get all the pleasures and benefits of having more progeny as well.

I like this idea.

[Niall of the Nine Hostages]

A lot of couples "split up" for benefit reasons I've heard don't know how true it is.

Yeah, I've heard that. Although it sounds like quite a pain in the neck to implement.

[Malthus]

Yeah, I've heard that. Although it sounds like quite a pain in the neck to implement.

Very easy

The give away is the number of single mothers who have further children with the same father, don't have any stats but anecdotally its very common

[workingpoor]

Very easy

The give away is the number of single mothers who have further children with the same father, don't have any stats but anecdotally its very common

Probably why the fathers name no longer has to appear on the birth certificate & each further birth gives another 5 yrs on the benefit gravy train

Edited December 10, 2013 by Bringingitdown

[Niall of the Nine Hostages]

Very easy

The give away is the number of single mothers who have further children with the same father, don't have any stats but anecdotally its very common

I dunno.

I'd have thought I would have to find somewhere to live, and start renting it, and then claim all the various benefits, telling the various agencies that I'd split up with my wife whilst in actual fact not living there. The landlord or the neighbours would probably notice I'm never there and next thing you know I'm being done for benefit fraud, which I guess is a criminal offence and now I've got a criminal record. If I had a criminal record and was a bit reckless with nothing to lose...maybe, but at first glance doesn't look very promising.

[mrtickle]

Probably why the fathers name no longer has to appear on the birth certificate & each further birth gives another 518 yrs on the benefit gravy train

Fixed for you.

[debtlessmanc]

As i think i have posted here before, when my wife and I split up (now divorced) last year we were instantly £800 pcm better off as separate individuals (child benefit and tax credits). Where she lives typical one bed flat is £400 pcm so it would have made sound financial sense to do this without all the emotional trauma.

she is now working part time (wouldn't work before- was driving me mad) and she declared in court she was saving £1000 a month...from us being in a precarious financial position...

as to me i am living with a new partner in a better house and a much better environment than we had before, and saving too.

[crashmonitor]

One of the things I noticed people writing here, is that the clever thing to do, is to be 'self-employed', which I sort of am.

But I think again, I can't make this work to my benefit because my wife earns too much - right?

When the new Universal Credit system finally gets running, subject to clearing up the IT mess, then sort of self employed is not going to be good enough wife or no wife. Got to have a net profit of minimum wage times 30 hours, not really doable on sort of status......maybe not even doable for many genuinely full time self employed such as shop keepers or market traders.