Could you manage to live on $777.75 a week?

[InsaneApache]

Well, could you?

Some politicians in the UK think not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9034749/Welfare-reform-Tories-determined-to-push-through-benefit-cap-despite-stinging-defeat.html

[a completely inoffensive name]

$40,000 is a decent entry level job. I think it might even be above the median for US individuals.

Question is if it rises according to inflation or if that number is static.

[CountArach]

The entire issue appears to stem from the fact that the child benefit does not count towards that. $778 per week could be enough for a single person, but adding in a child to that makes it problematic.

[InsaneApache]

The entire issue appears to stem from the fact that the child benefit does not count towards that. $778 per week could be enough for a single person, but adding in a child to that makes it problematic.

Perhaps that could be true for London. It'd be a bloody fortune up here in Yorkshire. Many people I know who work don't take anything like that home after taxes and what not.

[Hooahguy]

Well Im pretty sure that the majority of the world lives on less than that...

[naut]

$40,000 is a decent entry level job. I think it might even be above the median for US individuals.

Question is if it rises according to inflation or if that number is static.
Yep.

And at that it isn't very much money. The thing is, welfare goes straight back into the economy. A person on welfare isn't going to be saving... there's a reason they're on welfare. =P

[Moros]

Is that with or without taxes? Either way that doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. I earn half of that only working one day a week.

[Greyblades]

I could live with that, though I'm a student living at home so I could and sometimes do live with 20 quid period.

[InsaneApache]

Is that with or without taxes? Either way that doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. I earn half of that only working one day a week.

It's given to people in benefits from the taxpayer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

$40,000 is a decent entry level job. I think it might even be above the median for US individuals.

Question is if it rises according to inflation or if that number is static.


The entire issue appears to stem from the fact that the child benefit does not count towards that. $778 per week could be enough for a single person, but adding in a child to that makes it problematic.

£26,000 is the upper end of entry-level Graduate level jobs in the UK, and you get taxed on that. The £26,000 we are talking about is actually £35,000 equivilent, because no tax is payed. To compare, the last full time job I had, working in an office straight out of university, was £17,000 odd, and £12,000 after tax. Granted, that was a couple of years ago but wage inflation has been pretty much 0 for the last two years, so the comparison is still valid.

£26,000 is also more than the combined income of my parents, before tax, on which they are currently helping two children through university.


Two more points:

1. The figure WILL be inflation linked, they always are.

2. The definition of "homeless" used here means children sharing bedrooms, as my sister and I did when I was younger.

To be frank, I have no sympathy with this crap [mods can give me waning points for the naughty word, I'm currently restraining myself from punctuating this with f-bombs] and I think if there is a REAL problem in the capitol that a flat "London living" grant could be added to that, where the government directly subsidyses the rent on a house/flat. To be honest though, if you don't have a job you don't need to live in London, do you?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that with or without taxes? Either way that doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. I earn half of that only working one day a week.

I have earned £150 a week on some jobs, that's what in $US, less than 300?

[naut]

To compare, the last full time job I had, working in an office straight out of university, was £17,000 odd, and £12,000 after tax. Granted, that was a couple of years ago but wage inflation has been pretty much 0 for the last two years, so the comparison is still valid.
Off topic, but that's very low. I am sorry you had to work for such low compensation.

[Centurion1]

im very interested that the austrailans are the ones who seem to think it is not enough money.

Hell GC when (god willing) i commission i will make literally that much as a 2lt.

thats a ridiculously high number if you ask me you could probably easily live as a smaller family. I should say, "easily" it would not be a comfortable life and certainly a lower standard of living compared to what i live like.

[The Stranger]

Is that with or without taxes? Either way that doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. I earn half of that only working one day a week.

u earn 300 euros a week for working 1 day? :O wtf i want your job...

[Moros]

Okay I clearly wasn't wide awake yet, I red a month. No wonder I was surprised at the lower figure. But then again I figured a dollar probably ain't worth much either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Off topic, but that's very low. I am sorry you had to work for such low compensation.

It's £5,000 more than someone working in a shop gets in a year, for 40 odd hours a week. I lived faily well, thank you very much, and I had £4,000+ left at the end of the year, I reckon I could have just about supported a wife and new baby on that wage, which worked out as £275 a week, or about double what I need to live on my own.

So I'll not take your offering of pity, thanks.

[Husar]

A WEEK? ARE YOU CRAZY?

We have jobs that pay 400€ a MONTH!

777 is about the amount of Euros I need to pay my bills every month and some of them are higher than they need to be.

With a child etc. that wouldn't be enough, but the same amount per week makes more than four times that much a month! That's like 3000 a month!

Come ooooon. If a family consists of seven people or so it would be tough but 3000$ a month can't be that hard for most normal families. :inquisitive:

[Kralizec]

On the face of it, that's absurdly high.

This:


Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, who introduced the successful amendment, said: "It cannot be right for the cap to be the same for a childless couple as for a couple with children. Child benefit is the most appropriate way to right this unfairness."

While I agree with the sentiment, the cap mentioned is far to high for childless households, and it seems rather hard to believe that a family with less than 5 kids couldn't live on that kind of money. Hell, when I was fresh out of college I had to live on less than 800 Euro per month. And a person on minimum wage earns slightly below 18000, or about 15000 pounds per year - granted, there are all sorts of financial accomodations low income earners can get, but you'd never get even close to reaching the figure mentioned in the article.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think if there is a REAL problem in the capitol that a flat "London living" grant could be added to that, where the government directly subsidyses the rent on a house/flat. To be honest though, if you don't have a job you don't need to live in London, do you?

I imagine though if you move out of London while on benefits you would encounter problems in the area of housing etc etc. Most local authorities would require you to be resident in an area for a while before assuming the load on you housing need.

Still it's an outrageous amount to be given out to people.

We recently had a scandal about a Bosnia family who were claimig over €1700 a week in benefits, there calling for a maximum cap now to stop that kind of thing.

[The Stranger]

i lived off 300 euros in a month and i still ate icecream and such :P but ok i was in indonesia.

[Strike For The South]

Not only could I live on it but I would have enough left over for all the drugs and anal sex I could handle

[econ21]

The Bishops were right - it makes no sense to budget, or cap, per household. There has to be an adjustment for household size. Excluding child benefit, which was never supposed to be means tested, is a sensible amendment.

But I suspect the other thing driving this figure is London housing. There was a proposal a while back to limit housing benefit and effectively exclude benefit claimants from central London. IIRC, the Conservative London Mayor opposed this as socially divisive and there does seem to be an issue in London, where unlike many places, rich and poor often live very close to each other. Plus benefits are often for short term situations - unemployment, sickness etc - and effectively forcing people to uproot their homes due to a temporary downturn in circumstances is questionable.

I can't help thinking this cap is a short term populist measure that avoids tackling the deeper issues. The benefit system has never been about a simple means-tested system related to income alone; Beveridge was deliberately trying to avoid that because it tends to lead to a poverty trap (people don't have an incentive to earn more income). Instead it was to deal with the contingencies that cause poverty - like unemployment, sickness or disability etc. We've moved away from that over time, but this is still a very crude proposal. And how many people will be affected by it? I imagine a miniscule figure. But it will go down well with the Daily Mail and Sun readers. And Orgahs it seems, oh well. Well played Mr Cameron.

And tough luck, any large households on benefits in central London - better split up and move out of your homes.

[PanzerJaeger]

The Bishops were right - it makes no sense to budget, or cap, per household. There has to be an adjustment for household size. Excluding child benefit, which was never supposed to be means tested, is a sensible amendment.



Doesn't that incentivize welfare babies? In the US, when welfare was reformed in the late 90's, all of the child benefits were excluded. Guess how people are still living off welfare in 2012?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And tough luck, any large households on benefits in central London - better split up and move out of your homes.

Why should someone paying a lot of money to live in central London have to pay for their neighbors as well?

The idea of defining poverty as "relative poverty" is one of the dumbest ideas of modern societies.


$778 per week could be enough for a single person, but adding in a child to that makes it problematic.

Could be enough for a single person?

Children aren't that expensive either. It's just that people DO spend the extra money if they have it.

In fact you are doing your kids a favor if you don't buy them bunches of stuff...

[Ironside]

Doesn't that incentivize welfare babies? In the US, when welfare was reformed in the late 90's, all of the child benefits were excluded. Guess how people are still living off welfare in 2012?

Depends on the size I suppose. Here it's 1050 SEK month/child or about $150. Good luck having welfare babies on that.

[rory_20_uk]

Or, here's a thought... Don't Have Kids!

Professionals can have to put off having children for a decade or more for both the career and to get enough money to look after them. Or of course one can get knocked up at 15 and just keep on going. Don't worry if you can't cope - the state will step in as no Child Shall Be Left Behind - which means a blank cheque. The more you screw your life up, the more you'll get. If your kids misbehave at school they'll get special tutors and even trips out to bribe them to behave.

I am not saying my upbringing was perfect, but I learnt early on that things need to be paid for and frankly my parents didn't have much money. Not poor enough for massive handouts of course. I learned that to get things I'd have to work for many years, and the reward for hard work was a better quality of life.

If you've seen your parents get everything for free, then why bother? Society provides for free without effort on one's part.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Or, here's a thought... Don't Have Kids!

I think Welfare should only cover two children. Akin to China's "One-Child" policy, but in our case, "Two-Child" and anymore then it comes off your own back. Only difference is exceptional circumstances, like having triplets.

[Papewaio]

I think you should not create a negative eugenics environment.

Giving people an income above the average for middle class is essentially telling people to not use welfare as an emergency situation. It is like people using a hospital as permanent accommodation despite being perfectly healthy.

An adults choices are an adults responsibilities. The children should have access to school, exercise and essential nutrition.

$700 a week and not having to work would mean I could do more around my home. It would pay my mortgage, groceries and entertainment. In fact my living expenses should be less. No need to commute in rush hour. Plenty of time to cook, grow my own food, exercise, go to the library, time to go camping etc

Even more time to spend with my child, to help him grow, to play, to teach, to learn from him.

[GenosseGeneral]

I think Welfare should only cover two children. Akin to China's "One-Child" policy, but in our case, "Two-Child" and anymore then it comes off your own back. Only difference is exceptional circumstances, like having triplets.

Unfortunately the unemployed are also often far less educated and practice less birth control or don't know how to do so. I don't think having a child is something people, especially of the 'lower classes' plan but something just happens. Maybe more than just once or twice. Thus I don't think that the number of children of families on welfare can be limited by not giving money for more than one or two children.

On the amount of money: A single person can live with that sum a month, not only a week. I think cutting welfare can make people look for work who otherwise would not, but it won't make unemployment disappear. Welfare should be substantially lower than average job income, but still allow to live on it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand why government doesn't use a transitionary welfare system. Peg the amount paid to the calculated poverty line given the circumstances. Allow them to get jobs while continuing to get welfare for extra money. As their salary increases, they report it to the tax man and their welfare decreases by a slightly less amount to encourage more hard work.

[The Stranger]

Or, here's a thought... Don't Have Kids!

Professionals can have to put off having children for a decade or more for both the career and to get enough money to look after them. Or of course one can get knocked up at 15 and just keep on going. Don't worry if you can't cope - the state will step in as no Child Shall Be Left Behind - which means a blank cheque. The more you screw your life up, the more you'll get. If your kids misbehave at school they'll get special tutors and even trips out to bribe them to behave.

I am not saying my upbringing was perfect, but I learnt early on that things need to be paid for and frankly my parents didn't have much money. Not poor enough for massive handouts of course. I learned that to get things I'd have to work for many years, and the reward for hard work was a better quality of life.

If you've seen your parents get everything for free, then why bother? Society provides for free without effort on one's part.

~:smoking:

lol have no children and allow no immigrants, i think this is a good policy. within a few decades there will be no overpopulated areas in the "West". Prolly there will be nothing left here but that may be negative speculation.

[The Stranger]

Not only could I live on it but I would have enough left over for all the drugs and anal sex I could handle

u pay to get ur **** ****ed?

EDIT BY COUNTARACH: Language warning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmOehfTAyCk

[econ21]

Doesn't that incentivize welfare babies? In the US, when welfare was reformed in the late 90's, all of the child benefits were excluded. Guess how people are still living off welfare in 2012?

Perhaps like in the US, child benefit is a very popular part of the welfare system in the UK. It used to be universal, which - along with the fact that it was paid directly to the mother - may account for that. Recently, it was withdrawn from the highest tax payers. I am not against withdrawing it, although the UK does not suffer from too many babies and without immigration could be said to have too few. However, the reason the House of Lords voted to exclude child benefit from the welfare cap is that it seemed unfair to withdraw the benefit from households on benefits getting £26000 per year and keep paying it to households earning up to £80000 per year.


Why should someone paying a lot of money to live in central London have to pay for their neighbors as well?

AFAIK, the whole of the UK pays for the welfare system - it's not a case of paying for your immediate neighbours. All national taxes go into a pot and some of that is spent on the poor. But those paying a lot to live in central London should definitely pay to help the poor - they include the richest earners in the UK (those working in the City of London).

I am not sure I used the right phrase "central London" - but "inner London" is where 54% of those affected by this change live. It includes a lot of quite poor areas that have experienced sharply rising house prices over the years. It's a strange situation, with newly gentrified areas co-existing with some of the roughest places in the UK and is part of the background to the riots we experienced last year. If you think about the contingencies that cause households to fall into poverty, it's not obvious that them moving home is necessarily the best thing. For example, if someone falls sick or becomes incapacitated, loses their job etc. it's not clear to me that we should add to that the stress and cost of moving home and being uprooted from ones community. Especially, as London is quite a vibrant economy with excellent health services. There can also be social tensions among the new host communities if benefit claimants are driven into their areas in large numbers.

Back to the OP: $777.75 a week sounds a lot, but another way of saying it is £108 per person per week[1]. Which is not a lot when you factor in London rents.

[1]The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 64,0000 households will be affected by the cap. They include 90,0000 adults and 220,000 children. So on average, those households have 1.3 adults and 3.3 children: £26000/[52*(1.3+3.3)]=£108

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/23/lords-child-benefit-welfare-defeat?intcmp=239

[ajaxfetish]

Taking a quick look at my records, it seems my family of 3 has been living on an average of about $486 a week for the 8 months after my son was born (haven't added the last couple months in yet). I think we could probably manage to get by on about $300 more than we have been.

Ajax

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, and I will state for the record that this is only in my limited experience, is differences in the cost of living.

I'm currently in Australia but am originally from the UK and my partner's cousins live in the US. Based on this I can state that the costs in Australia are much higher than in the UK, and that they seem to be more expensive there than the US. This could account for some of the differences raised earlier in this thread...

[naut]

im very interested that the austrailans are the ones who seem to think it is not enough money.
IIRC the average salary here is $44,000 odd a year. Probably explains it.

But, food and other necessities are 30-40% more expensive here (except meat) than in the US and many European nations.

[econ21]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, and I will state for the record that this is only in my limited experience, is differences in the cost of living.

Housing costs in London are insane. The average rental price for a 3 bedroom property is over £3000 per month. This welfare cap would pay for only 2/3 of that and leave nothing left for food or whatever.

http://www.rentright.co.uk/london/3_rrpi.aspx

[rory_20_uk]

Oh no! Couldn't do that. The only good way to spend goverment money is on bombs, foreign occupations, and bolstering clandestine government agencies. God forbid we spend more helping the poor. :wall:

Who in this thread is advocating this?


lol have no children and allow no immigrants, i think this is a good policy. within a few decades there will be no overpopulated areas in the "West". Prolly there will be nothing left here but that may be negative speculation.

Keep taking the tablets mate... Let us know when you're feeling up to addressing the topic.

I'm sure someone must have mentioned the fact that companies / the very rich avoid taxes... and therefore addressing welfare shouldn't be done as it's an either / or situation.


Housing costs in London are insane. The average rental price for a 3 bedroom property is over £3000 per month. This welfare cap would pay for only 2/3 of that and leave nothing left for food or whatever.

http://www.rentright.co.uk/london/3_rrpi.aspx

Yes. And I couldn't afford to live there. I have for a few years lived in the periphery of London, generally in the nastier bits. Should I get s subsidy so I can do so? No, I've moved out altogether.

It is "odd" that when unemployed are grouped together in estates these do not become very pleasant areas - these are groups of people with vastly more than the average amount of free time and so could ensure their environment is kept clean and tidy.

~:smoking:

[Craterus]

Easily. And, of course, it's far too much. People should get the cost of food (own brand prices), rent, utilities and some sort of luxury allowance (cars and cable are luxuries). If you want McVitie's jaffa cakes - God knows why, they're not as good as the own brand ones (worse jaffa:cake ratio, if you had to ask) - then find a job, or dip into the luxury bank.

Why is the thread title in dollars? There was a time when non-US threads in the Backroom had the self-respect to deal in their own respective currencies. What went wrong? That's the real question we should be asking ourselves.

I'm disappointed.

[InsaneApache]

It sounds more in dollars. :creep:

[Furunculus]

I can't help thinking this cap is a short term populist measure that avoids tackling the deeper issues. But it will go down well with the Daily Mail and Sun readers. And Orgahs it seems, oh well. Well played Mr Cameron.

Civil society only exists along as their is popular consent to restrictions in your negative liberty (via taxation) in order to improve the positive liberty of the group as a whole (via Gov't services).

Without that consent you pave the road to insurrection.

I don't believe there is such consent for a level of benefits that approximates a wage of £36,000 (far more than i get), and if that is threatening to undermine the common consent to collective social provision then it is not populist, it is flat-out necessary!

[Furunculus]

What kills me about conservatives is that they often don't realize how the money is being spent in the first place. They whine and moan about welfare, but turn a blind eye to untold hundreds of billions of dollars going into constitutionally questionable intelligence activities. There is a very obvious moral contradiction here that makes the entire "anti-welfare" argument incredibly suspect and borderline offensive to common sense.

maybe that is because we believe the defence of the realm to be the primary job of the nation-state, and outside that we look for the minimum possible interference in our lives with the obvious corollary that self-reliance is an important trait to foster in society.

[gaelic cowboy]

maybe that is because we believe the defence of the realm to be the primary job of the nation-state, and outside that we look for the minimum possible interference in our lives with the obvious corollary that self-reliance is an important trait to foster in society.

Depends on what you mean by defense of the realm.

Does making sure you have suitable candidates for millitary life through HSE or educational spending come to an equal or greater concern as actual military spending.

I only ask because it seems to be important to yerself so we would need to ask who decides where the line is.

[rory_20_uk]

Defence spending in the UK is pretty small as a percentage of the total budget.

I think you will find that a number of people look to the state / others to provide everything in their life as it is a birthright. Some state that the trend to download content for free is further causing the expectation that things are provided on a plate with no requirement to invest time or money in achieving them. Labour recently has stated that they would not increase the wage of public sector workers - to howls of protest from the Unions who still have the thinking that the State is a piggy bank to be squeezed for all the money possible.

What are "suitable candidates"? The Foreign Legion seems to manage well by having entry requirements of 18+... and that's it. The percentage that require to be highly trained academically is pretty small. Most vocational skills are best learnt undertaking the vocation. Does a grasp of French suddenly make one a better citizen, or the ability to calculate the height of a building from the distance from it and the angle of inclination? The Navigator needs to know where the ship is heading, but those below decks in the trireme merely need to know how to use an oar.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't understand why government doesn't use a transitionary welfare system. Peg the amount paid to the calculated poverty line given the circumstances. Allow them to get jobs while continuing to get welfare for extra money. As their salary increases, they report it to the tax man and their welfare decreases by a slightly less amount to encourage more hard work.


Oh no! Couldn't do that. The only good way to spend goverment money is on bombs, foreign occupations, and bolstering clandestine government agencies. God forbid we spend more helping the poor. :wall:

Guys.... we're talking about the UK (in this case), not the US - we have graduated benefits.

As to Child Benefit, it is regressive with the way it is because (and I know this from where I live) men get women, have them pump out babies and get a new one once she's past childbearing. Children become comodities and women become cash cows - capping child benefit stops that.

[rory_20_uk]

It's a two way street. Women get men to get them pregnant and then since in many cases they are financially better off without the man sticking around they get rid of them. If the man wants to stay around they can then fight through the courts to see their child - with the assumption being that the children are best off with the mother and that contact can be delayed as long as there are any outstanding allegations by the mother as to the fitness of the father. The other way around appear to be ignored. Since this processs can take years before contact is even gained many think they'd be better off starting again elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Depends on what you mean by defense of the realm.

Does making sure you have suitable candidates for millitary life through HSE or educational spending come to an equal or greater concern as actual military spending.

I only ask because it seems to be important to yerself so we would need to ask who decides where the line is.

i really don't intend to define it at all, merely reject the notion that there is some inherent iniquity or contradiction as posited by GC.

[econ21]

I don't believe there is such consent for a level of benefits that approximates a wage of £36,000 (far more than i get), and if that is threatening to undermine the common consent to collective social provision then it is not populist, it is flat-out necessary!

The reason I think this is a populist measure is because it is an ad hoc quick fix. Why £500 per household? Why not £450 or £550? Why not £100 per person?

The welfare system has arisen by trying to estimate how much people need given various contingencies:

A for housing
B for kids
C for disability
etc

Then to say they need A+B+C+... but can't have it because the total is over £500 per week just seems inconsistent and irrational.

I agree that a case can be made for reforming A - who benefits from the very high London housing allowances? I suspect typically the landlords. Or reforming B if we are afraid of "incentivising" babies (I'm not but apparently many are in this thread). C (disability) may be ok in many cases, but perhaps going to many who don't need it etc.

But fixing A, B and C is difficult. It would cause political problems for Boris in London, would challenge the middle class entitlement for childbenefit (electoral suicide for Cameron), would bring the government into conflict with doctors and disability rights campaigners (guess who would win?).

So we take the popularist route - splash big payouts and bad cases over the headlines, then watch as 284,000 people on benefits arbitrarily lose money to save the taxpayer £150m.

The Lords have done the right thing in asking the government to think again.

[Centurion1]

Depends on what you mean by defense of the realm.

Does making sure you have suitable candidates for millitary life through HSE or educational spending come to an equal or greater concern as actual military spending.

I only ask because it seems to be important to yerself so we would need to ask who decides where the line is.

uhhhhh if by suitable candidates means physical fit, mentally stable, and no health concerns then I think the money would probably be well spent.

[rory_20_uk]

The reason I think this is a populist measure is because it is an ad hoc quick fix. Why £500 per household? Why not £450 or £550? Why not £100 per person?

The welfare system has arisen by trying to estimate how much people need given various contingencies:

A for housing
B for kids
C for disability
etc

Then to say they need A+B+C+... but can't have it because the total is over £500 per week just seems inconsistent and irrational.

I agree that a case can be made for reforming A - who benefits from the very high London housing allowances? I suspect typically the landlords. Or reforming B if we are afraid of "incentivising" babies (I'm not but apparently many are in this thread). C (disability) may be ok in many cases, but perhaps going to many who don't need it etc.

But fixing A, B and C is difficult. It would cause political problems for Boris in London, would challenge the middle class entitlement for childbenefit (electoral suicide for Cameron), would bring the government into conflict with doctors and disability rights campaigners (guess who would win?).

So we take the popularist route - splash big payouts and bad cases over the headlines, then watch as 284,000 people on benefits arbitrarily lose money to save the taxpayer £150m.

The Lords have done the right thing in asking the government to think again.

Keeping a system that has several parts increases complexity and hence has both higher overheads, higher unintentional error and increased risk of fraud.

Having benefits that are close to the net earnings of someone on an above average salary should be fine. This will mean there is an upper limit on the size of one's family (as is true of working families) and where one can live (as is true of working families). This does not meet that disabled people need to use this money for their carers / alterations to their house as this comes out of the NHS budget and in some cases will be vastly more.

If you can't live your life in this sort of money, then frankly you need to alter your life - be that alter what you spend the money on, or move to a less expensive area.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

The reason I think this is a populist measure is because it is an ad hoc quick fix. Why £500 per household? Why not £450 or £550? Why not £100 per person?


i believe £36,000 is the average household income.

[gaelic cowboy]

uhhhhh if by suitable candidates means physical fit, mentally stable, and no health concerns then I think the money would probably be well spent.

Yes thats exactly what I mean.

A western country can hardly defend itself in todays world if it's population suffer chronic health problems or rampant illiteracy.

[Centurion1]

Yes thats exactly what I mean.

A western country can hardly defend itself in todays world if it's population suffer chronic health problems or rampant illiteracy.

I mean its not even about defense its about competitiveness and not becoming a nation of degenerate rejects that are so out of shape and mentally unstable the state plays mother hen.

[classical_hero]

im very interested that the austrailans are the ones who seem to think it is not enough money.

Hell GC when (god willing) i commission i will make literally that much as a 2lt.

thats a ridiculously high number if you ask me you could probably easily live as a smaller family. I should say, "easily" it would not be a comfortable life and certainly a lower standard of living compared to what i live like.

If I ever want to own my own home, then that is most definitely not enough to get me a house of my own. Also cost of living is much higher in Australia than it is in most places since we did not experience a slow down like much of the rest of the world.

[econ21]

i believe £36,000 is the average household income.

Thanks, so it's an average - that explains the sum. But why per household? Average household size in the UK is 2.3. For those households affected by the cap it is 4.6. If there was some allowance for the size of the household - such as excluding child benefit - it would be more reasonable and have passed through the Lords.

[Papewaio]

Two problems. Do they have more children/larger households to get more benefits?

Second issue is if the cap is per household then the consequences are pretty clear given current welfare eugenics. The fathers will decamp and get another home leaving the mother and offspring in a separate house. This will double the amount of income available and further shatter marriage/de facto relationships. End of the day if you reward a sequence of actions don't be surprised about them salivating when the bell tolls.

[Papewaio]

Two problems. Do they have more children/larger households to get more benefits?

Second issue is if the cap is per household then the consequences are pretty clear given current welfare eugenics. The fathers will decamp and get another home leaving the mother and offspring in a separate house. This will double the amount of income available and further shatter marriage/de facto relationships. End of the day if you reward a sequence of actions don't be surprised about them salivating when the bell tolls.

[rory_20_uk]

Two problems. Do they have more children/larger households to get more benefits?

Second issue is if the cap is per household then the consequences are pretty clear given current welfare eugenics. The fathers will decamp and get another home leaving the mother and offspring in a separate house. This will double the amount of income available and further shatter marriage/de facto relationships. End of the day if you reward a sequence of actions don't be surprised about them salivating when the bell tolls.

Often the case already, where there is more money without a useless, unemployed man. As has also been said the child benefits should be capped for the first two children.

The only "solution" would be to give money for marriage - even then who is to say it is a genuine marriage? There will always be ways of gaming the system. At least this would be capped in the new proposed system.

~:smoking:

[econ21]

Child benefit is £13.40 a week (after the first child). Given the cost of rearing kids - financial, in time and emotional - I just don't see that as a big enough incentive to induce increased fertility. You'd get about that by working a couple of hours or so on minimum wage.

Papewaio, I do agree with your second point that the per household cap will induce family breakup, but that's a problem with the government's proposed cap rather than with my argument that any cap should be per person (or per adult equivalent, if we think children have lower financial needs than adults).

The argument is not controversial: no serious economist would measure individual well being per household without adjusting for household size - it's like measuring Chinese citizens' well being by looking at China's GDP not GDP per capita. It's nonsense.

[Papewaio]

I'd like to be able to split income within a married houshold and a higher tax free threshold for income earners with children.

Until androids of Asimov variety come along, the children will be the doctors and nurses and carers looking after the perma DINKS. So we should be looking after our future prosperity.

[Beskar]

Two problems. Do they have more children/larger households to get more benefits?

Unfortunately, yes. I know an example where they had an extra child so they could have access to a bigger house and the other benefit perks.

[rory_20_uk]

Child benefit is £13.40 a week (after the first child). Given the cost of rearing kids - financial, in time and emotional - I just don't see that as a big enough incentive to induce increased fertility. You'd get about that by working a couple of hours or so on minimum wage.

If you're on benefits there is no financial cost. The state pays for everything. Time - if you really screw things up you get a small army of minders to come and help you. Emotional - you are making a massive assumption. Sure, many are but to do so is a very modern, middle class thing in the West. In India, for example, the poor still cripple their children so they'll make better beggars.

The cost per child will decrease, as to take 3 to a free nursery is as easy as 2. One can use much of the stuff with subsequent children. The benefits are probably greater than linear as if one takes this to extremes and has 5+ children there are few houses that are large enough to accommodate them all. Living within one's means is a phrase only for those that work. Those very large houses will tend to be in very nice areas where generally only the extremely loaded can live.

Oh, and it's not you can't work - you just can't declare that you're working. If caught, what are they going to do? Lock you up when prison is c. £1,000 a week?

~:smoking:

[econ21]

If you're on benefits there is no financial cost. The state pays for everything.

If you're on benefits, you still have a budget, albeit paid for by the state: you spend it on child related items or on non-child related items. So child related items still have a budgetary cost (the foregone non-child related items).


Emotional - you are making a massive assumption. Sure, many are but to do so is a very modern, middle class thing in the West. In India, for example, the poor still cripple their children so they'll make better beggars.

There are millions of poor in India and most are hardworking people who don't beg, let alone cripple their children.

I know children can be more economically productive in developing countries (although that's changing fast), but I'm not persuaded that emotionally investing in your kids is exclusively either modern, middle class or Western. Kids have vexed their parents throughout history; open almost any book in the Old Testament to see.

[rory_20_uk]

The budget from the state increases with the number of children. Obviously there is the weekly handout for having a child, then there is a small amount for fruit and vegetables. Hardship grants can also be available, as is money for school clothes. Free meals at school of course and free transport to and from school.

Vexed yes, of course. But when there was an 80% chance that any one child wasn't going to get to puberty there was less reason to get to attached to any one. The first death will hit anyone, but the 4th death a lot less. Doctors generally remember the first patient that died on them, but the 50th? Any parents will tell you that the awe / excitement / whatever decreases as one has additional children.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Thirty years ago when little Apache MK II was born, the former Mrs. Apache and I decided that we could not afford any more sprogs. Why? Well because both of us were working and we couldn't afford it. Not just that but the house that we lived in at the time wasn't big enough for another nipper.

I think it's called personal responsibility.

How can it be moral that someone who is not working garner more money than someone who is?

As for all the 'progressive' thinkers out there here's something to ponder on.

There's nothing 'progressive' about making your children and grandchildren pay off your debt.

[Furunculus]

Thanks, so it's an average - that explains the sum. But why per household? Average household size in the UK is 2.3. For those households affected by the cap it is 4.6. If there was some allowance for the size of the household - such as excluding child benefit - it would be more reasonable and have passed through the Lords.

the liberal problem, all stuff requires the assent of the people. otherwise we get indignant and stick pitch-forks in neighbours.

[econ21]

I think it's called personal responsibility.

Point taken, but I think we need to be cautious about assuming that people living on benefits are irresponsible, unlike those who are not. It's a pretty broad brush to paint an unfortunately large segment of society. Most statistics on poverty tend to show a lot of mobility - most of the poor are poor for a certain time in their lives, not others. They either start not poor and fall on hard times (sickness, unemployment, marital break down, whatever). Or they start poor and work their way out. Just because they need the welfare state, I would be cautious about saying they made irresponsible decisions about their fertility. Hard times are often unpredictable, as we saw in 2008.


How can it be moral that someone who is not working garner more money than someone who is?

Because they need more?


As for all the 'progressive' thinkers out there here's something to ponder on.

There's nothing 'progressive' about making your children and grandchildren pay off your debt.

For OECD countries, over the last century or so, each generation of children has been about twice as rich as that of their grandparents. Consequently, acquiring some debt that is paid off by the next generation seems quite progressive to me and is probably one reason why all countries do it.

[jirisys]

The maximum minimum wage in El Salvador is $224.21 a month in the commerce and services sector.

The minimum minimum wage is $87.48 a month in the cotton harvesting sector.

We use dollar currency and the food is more expensive than in the US. But the cost of services is much less.

~Jirisys ()

[Furunculus]

For OECD countries, over the last century or so, each generation of children has been about twice as rich as that of their grandparents. Consequently, acquiring some debt that is paid off by the next generation seems quite progressive to me and is probably one reason why all countries do it.

try telling that to the children of 2050 who will represent one third of the population paying for the social provision of the other two thirds, rather than the 1950's where taxpaying workers represented two thirds versus the one third who were 'consumers'.

and we have it good, pity poor germany which is going to be truly knackered in 2050!

to put it another way, little old britain will be richer than any other country in europe by that point, in both relative and absolute terms.

[rory_20_uk]

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185)

Ones that I find interesting is the £15 PER WEEK on Sky, and the £32 PER WEEK on mobile phones. There is of course a further weekly £7 on phones and internet. A further £20 a week on entertainment. These items come to £3848 per year.

When did Sky become a basic need (Freeview is clearly not something that someone in the Developed world should have to subsist on)? Similarly, mobile phones are required as it would be impossible to explain to teenagers why they can't have one...

Weekly shopping includes "24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco".

They of course view the cuts as forcing them a choice "between heating or eating", rather than even acknowledging that there are areas that are basically luxuries. And we have not even touched on the near heretical thought that some in the family could do some... work.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

Educational software writer...unemployed for ten years. Guess what with iPad and ilk that skill set should be on the way back if he can get his a into g.

Surely he could have self educated in that period to another skilled either another form of software dev or a teacher? Even a part time grad degree would only take 6 years. A dip Ed (assuming he already has a comp sci degree) would be two years part time.

£20 quid a week for boozing up when that represents 10% of the food and entertainment budget?

Drop sky, lager & smoking. Reinvest that time in exercise, reading and walking to parks and libraries.

Buy luxuries out of your own pocket not welfare. It is the equivalent of going to a hospital to use it as a hotel.

[Papewaio]

Educational software writer...unemployed for ten years. Guess what with iPad and ilk that skill set should be on the way back if he can get his a into g.

Surely he could have self educated in that period to another skilled either another form of software dev or a teacher? Even a part time grad degree would only take 6 years. A dip Ed (assuming he already has a comp sci degree) would be two years part time.

£20 quid a week for boozing up when that represents 10% of the food and entertainment budget?

Drop sky, lager & smoking. Reinvest that time in exercise, reading and walking to parks and libraries.

Buy luxuries out of your own pocket not welfare. It is the equivalent of going to a hospital to use it as a hotel.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Educational software writer...unemployed for ten years. Guess what with iPad and ilk that skill set should be on the way back if he can get his a into g.

Surely he could have self educated in that period to another skilled either another form of software dev or a teacher? Even a part time grad degree would only take 6 years. A dip Ed (assuming he already has a comp sci degree) would be two years part time.

£20 quid a week for boozing up when that represents 10% of the food and entertainment budget?

Drop sky, lager & smoking. Reinvest that time in exercise, reading and walking to parks and libraries.

Buy luxuries out of your own pocket not welfare. It is the equivalent of going to a hospital to use it as a hotel.

Quite, and that's with five kids.

[Centurion1]

this is why so many people hate welfare. I feel no pity for that man and his situation whatsoever. Unbelievable amounts of his income spent on things I consider luxuries not necessities. Welfare is meant for you to survive not to have a comfortable life. Its scum like this that will probably remain unemployed for the remainder of his life cause of the sweet benefits. Nither he nor his wife could find a job for 10!!!!! years? Ludicrous. Also im sorry but 30k euros (which is what like 36k american or more) is what many degree holding people make in the US. I find it absurd that those on welfare rake that in. hell i wouldnt want to work either if i could laze about like this fellow.

[Centurion1]

no of course not. I don't like it but I'm fully aware that people need a safety net in times of trouble. I don't think the government should be handing out what is equivalent to 3 times the minimum wage. I mean Britain WTF. Your minimum wage is about 13k euros, no?

I don't think a man with some for of schooling apparently cannot find a job, any job, after 10 years. This dude is a prime example of laziness and government moochers. I mean what the hell happened to having a little pride in yourself and not being willing to live off of others success.

[Centurion1]

no you misunderstand me. this guy for example is getting his welfare and its like 30000 euros while some poor bloke is working at mcdonalds working hard for every scent being a good citizen and making 13000 euros.

also you been away a man lol its like 7.25

[Papewaio]

Pounds not euros.

£30,000 = $47,000 US

[rory_20_uk]

Buy luxuries out of your own pocket not welfare. It is the equivalent of going to a hospital to use it as a hotel.

Some people do, especially with elderly relatives if a Nursing home / Residential home would cost money.

~:smoking:

[Centurion1]

Pounds not euros.

£30,000 = $47,000 US


That is alot less than I will make when I first commission into the Army. that is less than I would make as a teacher, less than nearly any bachelor degree in the US outside of engineering.

Do people seriously wonder how the west is running such ridiculously high budgets.....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh? Really? Don't worry, by the time you make 1st Lt. you'll be making more than a Sergeant First Class who's been in for 13 years. Officer pay is disgracefully high. Or so any NCO will tell you. :laugh4:

Between Private and Corporal my yearly salary never exceeded $40,000 under normal circumstances (not counting Iraq). However, that's offset by the fact that I had free healthcare, free dental, free food, a free place to sleep, ect.

$40,000 is not a lot, though. That's uncomfortably at the bottom of the middle class. If you factor in a car payment, rent in a decent part of town, health/dental insurance, and maybe a family, then its really nothing at all in many parts of the USA. I don't think spending more money on welfare is necesarrily the answer, though. It's been an employer's job market for a long time in non-specialized jobs or any kind of manual labor, which seriously hurts the people who need work more than anything else. I'm not sure how to fix that.

$40,000 dollars is about what a graduate in the UK would expect to earn in their first year after Uni in a decent job in the South East, here in the South West you'd be lucky to get $30,000.

although, "free healthcare" is standard here, but I think our taxes are higher too.

[Papewaio]

That is alot less than I will make when I first commission into the Army. that is less than ...

Remember that is tax free income plus benefits such as cheaper housing etc

[Centurion1]

Remember that is tax free income plus benefits such as cheaper housing etc

im just giving perspective. it also includes basically any job that you graduate uni with a bachelors degree

[Papewaio]

Not the military tax free, the $47k that the welfare dependent gets for sitting at home for ten years, knocking up his wife with a fifth kid, boozing up and smoking his health away to become a bigger burden... is tax free.

To get that wealth for a worker add another 20-33% depending on your region. Most places you get taxed at least 20% so this welfare payment is the equivalent of over $62,000 to $70,000 in wages for someone who would then get taxed, pay for transport to work, keep their qualifications current, working gear and clothes etc.

He has more free time, more cash and less expenses as most workers have to up skill or their wages do not go up. For the welfare players subsidies kick in, cheaper prescription drugs in Australia for instance.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9t61PuiDc&feature=player_embedded