Topic: Is £26,000 per household per year enough to live?

[Dave]

Not read enough about it to know the full ins and outs of the proposed changes (hopefully they will be discussed in here) but on the face of it I can't really see the problem with the headline figure mentioned on the radio this morning.

£26k in the bank seems to be enough of a safety net to me.

Btw we don't have children as yet, but I was under the impression that child benefit was only available for the unemployed/unable to work etc?

[POOT]

It's not £26k in the bank...it's £26k annual income (wage). £26k in the bank would be amazing and no benefit should be paid for someone with those kinds of savings.

It's really down to what costs are for individuals.

We've found working tax credits and child tax credit (different from child benefit) invaluable...even on over £30k. But we're f***ed with debt.

No debt (other than mortgage) and it would be far easier.

But again...it'll be different for each case.

Edit: I thought the cap was your working income...not a cap on benefit income (£26k in benefits)

[Dave]

Nah, I meant £500 per week paid, that's what I thought this cap was going to be. £26k per year, not a lump sum.

[Magpie]

Child benefit, up to now, has always been available to every single person/family who have children, regardless of their status/income/wealth.

[POOT]

Nah, I meant £500 per week paid, that's what I thought this cap was going to be. £26k per year, not a lump sum.

Aye...totally got that wrong. They're saying you shouldn't earn more than £26k in benefits (housing, child etc).

Damn right if that's the case. Shocked you'd even have to cap it. How much are people getting

[Northerngimp]

Im confused.

The people claiming cant claim anymore then 26 k a year.

They get it in one lump sum or monthly payments?

[neesy111]

Im confused.

The people claiming cant claim anymore then 26 k a year.

They get it in one lump sum or monthly payments?

Well Monthly, 26k is the cap you can get a year in benefits.

[Dave]

Child benefit, up to now, has always been available to every single person/family who have children, regardless of their status/income/wealth.

What, really? Why do you get paid to have children?

[neesy111]

Child benefit, up to now, has always been available to every single person/family who have children, regardless of their status/income/wealth.

What, really? Why do you get paid to have children?

It's been like that for decades as well I believe

[catmag]

Child benefit, up to now, has always been available to every single person/family who have children, regardless of their status/income/wealth.

What, really? Why do you get paid to have children?

Every child gets child benefit. It's £20'ish per week for the first child and less (can't remember) for each subsequent child.

[POOT]

Child benefit, up to now, has always been available to every single person/family who have children, regardless of their status/income/wealth.

What, really? Why do you get paid to have children?

It's not really like that. But does seem like it (I thought it when we had our first).

It's a small amount (about £80 per month for first child) and I guess it's to reward/help people for making the next generation. It's the government recognising how costs can become a burden. Guess it's kind of like the old family allowance.

If you're loaded you'd likely just not apply for it.

You also get £200 that MUST be put in a savings account for when the child turns 18 (Child Trust Fund or something).

[Dave]

Child benefit, up to now, has always been available to every single person/family who have children, regardless of their status/income/wealth.

What, really? Why do you get paid to have children?

Every child gets child benefit. It's £20'ish per week for the first child and less (can't remember) for each subsequent child.

I can't get my head around this. I mean it makes sense for single parents or people that can't work for whatever reason but take the wife and I for example - why would/should we need state help? If we couldn't afford the cost of having children without an extra £20 per week then we wouldn't have them, simple as that. Is this weird?

[Ian W]

I think means testing every benefit is a good idea in principle TBH. The state should save it's help for those who can't help themselves. The only question for me is if the means testing is more or less expensive then just paying the benefit to everyone and keeping it simple.

[POOT]

It's more a "thanks for contributing towards the future of the country. We can't give you much but here's a thank you." You don't have to accept it.

But £80pm is helpful when you have a load of nappies to get.

I totally get the "if I need £20pw help...I'll not have children". But it's not about that. We'd (most of us) do ok without it...but it's nice to get back some of your NI etc to give a little help.

[Ian W]

Also I guess it protects the children of people who can't really afford to have kids but have them anyway.

[Dave]

It's more a "thanks for contributing towards the future of the country. We can't give you much but here's a thank you." You don't have to accept it.

But £80pm is helpful when you have a load of nappies to get.

I totally get the "if I need £20pw help...I'll not have children". But it's not about that. We'd (most of us) do ok without it...but it's nice to get back some of your NI etc to give a little help.

Oh I'm certainly not criticising anyone who claims it, don't get me wrong. If they're entitled to it then they're entitled to it.

I'm just surprised because I've not even looked into it before now.

[Dave]

Also I guess it protects the children of people who can't really afford to have kids but have them anyway.

Why should they be protected though? Unless it's as a result of rape etc, obviously.

[Dr.Spaceman]

Dave, didn't you work out the reason charvers have 8 bairns before the age of 18?

[Ian W]

Also I guess it protects the children of people who can't really afford to have kids but have them anyway.

Why should they be protected though? Unless it's as a result of rape etc, obviously.

Are you serious? Because the children are innocent and shouldn't have to live in poverty because their parents are idiots.

[Karjala]

£26k a year is more than enough! jeeeeez!

I used to work in a bank up until last year, and the amount of single mothers with one, two or three kids getting more than £2k a month into their account was unreal. Absolutely no incentive whatsoever for these people to get a job, as it simply won't earn them half of that. And most of them didnt have to pay rent neither, had reduced council tax etc etc

£26k for f*** all, only in Britain.

[Dave]

Also I guess it protects the children of people who can't really afford to have kids but have them anyway.

Why should they be protected though? Unless it's as a result of rape etc, obviously.

Are you serious? Because the children are innocent and shouldn't have to live in poverty because their parents are idiots.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look to prevent poverty, but won't we just continue to produce said idiots if we say it's okay and that the state will bail them out without fail? Why would they think twice?

PS: misread the 'protected' bit - thought you meant protecting the family/parents' income.

[Ian W]

Also I guess it protects the children of people who can't really afford to have kids but have them anyway.

Why should they be protected though? Unless it's as a result of rape etc, obviously.

Are you serious? Because the children are innocent and shouldn't have to live in poverty because their parents are idiots.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look to prevent poverty, but won't we just continue to produce said idiots if we say it's okay and that the state will bail them out without fail? Why would they think twice?

PS: misread the 'protected' bit - thought you meant protecting the family/parents' income.

Well that's the key question for any civilised society, not sure I know what the answer is. It's a very difficult balance between helping people and allowing them to come dependent on benefits.

But in this case people will reproduce, it's not really a decision as much as an evolutionary instinct. Yes, a few people might stop having unprotected sex if they couldn't get benefits for the children, but I doubt the link would be that strong.

I guess we just need to find innovative and effective ways to get people off benefits and working. At the same time though, the poorest people get the least out of capitalism and have to work hardest in the worst conditions for it, so I can see why some of them want to opt out.

[neesy111]

The fact you could get an unlimited amount in rent so you could live practically anywhere is extremely unfair as well.  If your on benefits, then you should not be allowed to live in wealthy areas where people who work could only dream of affording to live there.

[POOT]

I guess most people who get the little working tax incentive benefits etc would be shocked that some people claim over £26k in benefits (I'm one of them). But I presume it also includes housing benefit for rent or council rent.

Those who have children just to claim a benefit life, baffle me. It's bloody hard work bringing up a kid and it would be much easier just to work.

It's a funny one (like asylum seekers). There are those who genuinely need it and those who are on the scam.

This is going to end up tarring everyone with the same brush as extreme examples of benefit income will get the big headlines.

Agree with Ian on the protecting children of idiots etc...and I think more effort needs to be put into educating the culture of free hand out when you're perfectly able to work.

[POOT]

The fact you could get an unlimited amount in rent so you could live practically anywhere is extremely unfair as well.  If your on benefits, then you should not be allowed to live in wealthy areas where people who work could only dream of affording to live there.

Although you can't get benefit for a mortgage...it does surprise me that people can rent in expensive areas using housing benefit.