Well, could you?
Some politicians in the UK think not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ng-defeat.html
Printable View
Well, could you?
Some politicians in the UK think not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ng-defeat.html
$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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Well Im pretty sure that the majority of the world lives on less than that...
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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
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 could live with that, though I'm a student living at home so I could and sometimes do live with 20 quid period.
It's given to people in benefits from the taxpayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
£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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
£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?
I have earned £150 a week on some jobs, that's what in $US, less than 300?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Off topic, but that's very low. I am sorry you had to work for such low compensation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
im very interested that the austrailans are the ones who seem to think it is not enough money.
Hell GC when (god willing) i commission i will make literally that much as a 2lt.
thats a ridiculously high number if you ask me you could probably easily live as a smaller family. I should say, "easily" it would not be a comfortable life and certainly a lower standard of living compared to what i live like.
u earn 300 euros a week for working 1 day? :O wtf i want your job...Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Okay I clearly wasn't wide awake yet, I red a month. No wonder I was surprised at the lower figure. But then again I figured a dollar probably ain't worth much either.
It's £5,000 more than someone working in a shop gets in a year, for 40 odd hours a week. I lived faily well, thank you very much, and I had £4,000+ left at the end of the year, I reckon I could have just about supported a wife and new baby on that wage, which worked out as £275 a week, or about double what I need to live on my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
So I'll not take your offering of pity, thanks.
A WEEK? ARE YOU CRAZY?
We have jobs that pay 400€ a MONTH!
777 is about the amount of Euros I need to pay my bills every month and some of them are higher than they need to be.
With a child etc. that wouldn't be enough, but the same amount per week makes more than four times that much a month! That's like 3000 a month!
Come ooooon. If a family consists of seven people or so it would be tough but 3000$ a month can't be that hard for most normal families. :inquisitive:
On the face of it, that's absurdly high.
This:
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.Quote:
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
i lived off 300 euros in a month and i still ate icecream and such :P but ok i was in indonesia.
Not only could I live on it but I would have enough left over for all the drugs and anal sex I could handle
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Why should someone paying a lot of money to live in central London have to pay for their neighbors as well?Quote:
And tough luck, any large households on benefits in central London - better split up and move out of your homes.
The idea of defining poverty as "relative poverty" is one of the dumbest ideas of modern societies.
Could be enough for a single person?Quote:
$778 per week could be enough for a single person, but adding in a child to that makes it problematic.
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...
Depends on the size I suppose. Here it's 1050 SEK month/child or about $150. Good luck having welfare babies on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
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.
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.