Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
Well said.Stig said:
Just posting this as a reminder of the purpose of this thread and that it shouldn't be a backdoor HoC.PragueAddick said:I hope that like many other fine threads on CL this one will be a place where Lifers can share both knowledge and experience to help others. It isn't for "rich" Lifers. It's the way of the modern world that all of us have to try and save for old age. And it is not the place for politics, even though politics affects our decisions. I think the best way to get this going will be if people post some questions about things they are contemplating, puzzled about, scared of. Hopefully some Lifers with the relevant knowledge and experience will reply. So I will start, in the next post0 -
So why didn’t we see bolder choices ?cantersaddick said:
I completely agree on the bit in bold. Where I disagree is that its expenditure thats the problem. I think what we need to do is redress the balance of where tax comes from.Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
I don't actually think Minimum wage is the real issue. We are taxing ourselves as a country to the bottom.
Go back a few pages where a lifer talked about closing their business. Now I don't know the ins and outs of that business or the numbers involved, but a clear indication was given that the increased staff costs was a real issue (the increased Min Wage, increased NI levels, no doubt things like compulsory pension contributions also).
In my view the long and short is government expenditure is simply too high. The country cannot continue to spend what it does, it needs to spend considerably less as a %. Of course there are 101 ways that can happen and of course we need to protect the most needy/vulnerable. But unless we have a grown up conversation about that, we are on a race to the very bottom.
Taking your point on minimum wage, on a 40 hour week that will be £26,500 roughly come April. Your saying that isn't enough to live on and remain outside 'poverty' - well from that amount the government are taking £4k in tax and national insurance. Why are we taxing these people who earn the absolute bare minimum? And as we know with the freeze on tax bands and the tax free amount for about another 6 years, that will only get worse assuming minimum wage continues to increase by at least inflation. By the time we get to 2031 the bands won't have really changed for 12 years, is it any wonder the lower paid (in particular but by no means exclusively) are worse off? The tax free allowance was £11k in 2016, it's now 12,570. By simple inflation that should be £15,300 and on an increase of 3.5% per annum that should be £19,000 by 2031.
We can either make some tough decisions, or we can continue the race to the bottom, which compounds year after year. I fear if we continue as is for another few years we will be past the point of it being possible to resolve, if we aren't already there.
I've all but given up that Great Britain will resolve any of these issues in my lifetime, which is why as every day passes it's becoming more and more likely I'll retire early and leave the country and my advice to my two daughters is to do the same.
My brother in law is a small business owner, he has a bespoke house building and barn conversion company. He has for years said similar things to what you're saying here and also things like the minimum wage is too high. I persuaded him to spend some time sat with the public accounts of the national large house builders (with multinational ownership structures and parent companies) in the UK and look at their tax. He realised that he was paying as a proportion of both revenue and profit roughly double the rate of tax they are. How is that small business supposed to compete. My family come from farming - a number of them campaign and leaflet for reform. I got one of them to sit down with the published supermarket accounts and they found a similar story. How are farms meant to survive when 98% of the profit on food goes to large supermarkets with multinational ownership structures with massive oligopoly power and only 2% left for farmers, processors and distributors.
This is why we need to move the tax burden both from lower-middle earners and small businesses to large corporations and multi nationals and a small number of very wealthy individuals.
How? Well I've talked in the last few weeks about how I would do this. I have talked about the medicines pricing mechanism and applying that to other sectors like energy, I would also take the model of the digital services tax and go sector by sector and apply an operations tax in the same way on companies whose profits are based overseas. I'd return the bank levy to its post 2008 banking crisis level rather than the version we have now which is massively watered down. Remove the private equity tax relief. Other things like bringing back the investment income surcharge on high amounts, and I still believe in a wealth tax (but on much higher levels - progressive from 1% over £50/100m up to 3% over a billion) plus an exit tax. Possibly moving CGT rates slightly towards income tax rates (which would be coming down a little too). I've probably (definitely) missed a couple other things I've talked about recently.
If we did that we would be able to massively raise the thresholds of income tax and likely reduce the rates too, as well as reduce the burden on small businesses. More cash in peoples pockets means due to the Marginal Propensity to Consume that money is more likely to be spent rather than saved or moved abroad, the velocity of money is also higher at the lower end so you're more likely to get the multiplier effect and so this should boost growth.
I fundamentally believe it is possible to both reduce the tax burden on people earning under say 60K and small businesses as well as fund public services.
It needs a government willing to take on the oligopoly power of big business. It wont be this one as they are 60% funded by those multinationals. The Tories and reform even more so. The only party not funded by them are the Greens.
I don’t get it - if you don’t do it whilst you still have a sizeable majority then I assume they won’t next year either.So much of this is also back loaded and may well not land before the election cycle starts again. Feels like we will continue to drift along with just tweaks and twiddles.I worry more that unemployment short term will rise with AI further draining the economy. Can’t see much that suggests growth and where therefore best to invest.I guess the extra tax on savings will also be impacted by falling interest rates too.0 -
Why can't we just have a HoC and moderate it properly to remove people who are clearly seeking to ruin discussions?Stig said:
Just posting this as a reminder of the purpose of this thread and that it shouldn't be a backdoor HoC.PragueAddick said:I hope that like many other fine threads on CL this one will be a place where Lifers can share both knowledge and experience to help others. It isn't for "rich" Lifers. It's the way of the modern world that all of us have to try and save for old age. And it is not the place for politics, even though politics affects our decisions. I think the best way to get this going will be if people post some questions about things they are contemplating, puzzled about, scared of. Hopefully some Lifers with the relevant knowledge and experience will reply. So I will start, in the next post0 -
Leuth said:
Why can't we just have a HoC and moderate it properly to remove people who are clearly seeking to ruin discussions?Stig said:
Just posting this as a reminder of the purpose of this thread and that it shouldn't be a backdoor HoC.PragueAddick said:I hope that like many other fine threads on CL this one will be a place where Lifers can share both knowledge and experience to help others. It isn't for "rich" Lifers. It's the way of the modern world that all of us have to try and save for old age. And it is not the place for politics, even though politics affects our decisions. I think the best way to get this going will be if people post some questions about things they are contemplating, puzzled about, scared of. Hopefully some Lifers with the relevant knowledge and experience will reply. So I will start, in the next postBecause a) it would need constant moderation (unfair on volunteer mods) and b) it leads to aggressive arguments (I'm as guilty as the next person) between fellow Charlton fans who otherwise get on fine.1 -
See my last paragraph. Their election campaign was largely funded by these companies. That will have come with implicit agreements. Wont happen until we address how political parties are funded.valleynick66 said:
So why didn’t we see bolder choices ?cantersaddick said:
I completely agree on the bit in bold. Where I disagree is that its expenditure thats the problem. I think what we need to do is redress the balance of where tax comes from.Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
I don't actually think Minimum wage is the real issue. We are taxing ourselves as a country to the bottom.
Go back a few pages where a lifer talked about closing their business. Now I don't know the ins and outs of that business or the numbers involved, but a clear indication was given that the increased staff costs was a real issue (the increased Min Wage, increased NI levels, no doubt things like compulsory pension contributions also).
In my view the long and short is government expenditure is simply too high. The country cannot continue to spend what it does, it needs to spend considerably less as a %. Of course there are 101 ways that can happen and of course we need to protect the most needy/vulnerable. But unless we have a grown up conversation about that, we are on a race to the very bottom.
Taking your point on minimum wage, on a 40 hour week that will be £26,500 roughly come April. Your saying that isn't enough to live on and remain outside 'poverty' - well from that amount the government are taking £4k in tax and national insurance. Why are we taxing these people who earn the absolute bare minimum? And as we know with the freeze on tax bands and the tax free amount for about another 6 years, that will only get worse assuming minimum wage continues to increase by at least inflation. By the time we get to 2031 the bands won't have really changed for 12 years, is it any wonder the lower paid (in particular but by no means exclusively) are worse off? The tax free allowance was £11k in 2016, it's now 12,570. By simple inflation that should be £15,300 and on an increase of 3.5% per annum that should be £19,000 by 2031.
We can either make some tough decisions, or we can continue the race to the bottom, which compounds year after year. I fear if we continue as is for another few years we will be past the point of it being possible to resolve, if we aren't already there.
I've all but given up that Great Britain will resolve any of these issues in my lifetime, which is why as every day passes it's becoming more and more likely I'll retire early and leave the country and my advice to my two daughters is to do the same.
My brother in law is a small business owner, he has a bespoke house building and barn conversion company. He has for years said similar things to what you're saying here and also things like the minimum wage is too high. I persuaded him to spend some time sat with the public accounts of the national large house builders (with multinational ownership structures and parent companies) in the UK and look at their tax. He realised that he was paying as a proportion of both revenue and profit roughly double the rate of tax they are. How is that small business supposed to compete. My family come from farming - a number of them campaign and leaflet for reform. I got one of them to sit down with the published supermarket accounts and they found a similar story. How are farms meant to survive when 98% of the profit on food goes to large supermarkets with multinational ownership structures with massive oligopoly power and only 2% left for farmers, processors and distributors.
This is why we need to move the tax burden both from lower-middle earners and small businesses to large corporations and multi nationals and a small number of very wealthy individuals.
How? Well I've talked in the last few weeks about how I would do this. I have talked about the medicines pricing mechanism and applying that to other sectors like energy, I would also take the model of the digital services tax and go sector by sector and apply an operations tax in the same way on companies whose profits are based overseas. I'd return the bank levy to its post 2008 banking crisis level rather than the version we have now which is massively watered down. Remove the private equity tax relief. Other things like bringing back the investment income surcharge on high amounts, and I still believe in a wealth tax (but on much higher levels - progressive from 1% over £50/100m up to 3% over a billion) plus an exit tax. Possibly moving CGT rates slightly towards income tax rates (which would be coming down a little too). I've probably (definitely) missed a couple other things I've talked about recently.
If we did that we would be able to massively raise the thresholds of income tax and likely reduce the rates too, as well as reduce the burden on small businesses. More cash in peoples pockets means due to the Marginal Propensity to Consume that money is more likely to be spent rather than saved or moved abroad, the velocity of money is also higher at the lower end so you're more likely to get the multiplier effect and so this should boost growth.
I fundamentally believe it is possible to both reduce the tax burden on people earning under say 60K and small businesses as well as fund public services.
It needs a government willing to take on the oligopoly power of big business. It wont be this one as they are 60% funded by those multinationals. The Tories and reform even more so. The only party not funded by them are the Greens.
I don’t get it - if you don’t do it whilst you still have a sizeable majority then I assume they won’t next year either.So much of this is also back loaded and may well not land before the election cycle starts again. Feels like we will continue to drift along with just tweaks and twiddles.I worry more that unemployment short term will rise with AI further draining the economy. Can’t see much that suggests growth and where therefore best to invest.I guess the extra tax on savings will also be impacted by falling interest rates too.
I agree the tweaks and fiddling gets us nowhere and they are pushing the problems down the road.
0 -
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?0 -
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?0 -
.
0 -
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.0 -
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Just saw this. I hadn’t noted the timing difference between the 2% increase in dividend income and savings income.
Income Type
Current Tax Rates
Future Tax Rates
Effective from…
Property income
Basic: 20%
Higher: 40%
Additional: 45%
Basic: 22%
Higher: 42%
Additional: 47%
April 2027
Savings income
Basic: 20%
Higher: 40%
Additional: 45%
Basic: 22%
Higher: 42%
Additional: 47%
April 2027
Dividend income
Basic: 8.75%
Higher: 33.75%
Additional: 39.35%
Basic: 10.75%
Higher: 35.75%
Additional: 39.35%
April 2026
1 -
I hadn't noticed that either.robinofottershaw said:Just saw this. I hadn’t noted the timing difference between the 2% increase in dividend income and savings income.Income Type
Current Tax Rates
Future Tax Rates
Effective from…
Property income
Basic: 20%
Higher: 40%
Additional: 45%
Basic: 22%
Higher: 42%
Additional: 47%
April 2027
Savings income
Basic: 20%
Higher: 40%
Additional: 45%
Basic: 22%
Higher: 42%
Additional: 47%
April 2027
Dividend income
Basic: 8.75%
Higher: 33.75%
Additional: 39.35%
Basic: 10.75%
Higher: 35.75%
Additional: 39.35%
April 2026
I still find some of this bizarre. Effectively they have now added NI to non employment income. It's about time NI was removed completely from the system and we just had one 'income' tax and make everyone's life a lot easier. Fortunately I have no property income, have no savings (that are taxable) and the only dividend income is in ISA's or Pensions!
With new BTL's lucky to net 4% before this, I can only see rentals becoming less available and driving up the already very high rental prices. I must get offered at least 5 or 6 properties a month currently where the landlord wants to sell up and we don't even bother advertising properties anymore as the agent always has around 150 people registered and waiting. (And before anyone asks they aren't my properties, but those owned by a friendly society where I am a trustee).1 -
Been on a few Webinars this afternoon from various Investment houses and one thing I missed from yesterdays Budget was around VCT's. The tax relief is being reduced from 30% to 20%. They are not something I generally recommend & only do so due to the tax angle. Oh well....at least from April 2027 I might get the odd £8k to invest from the Under 65's !1
-
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
0 -
Define poverty also and what this really means day to day. Heard something tonight which was along the lines of an income less than 60% median wage (may have that wrong) and not necessarily the emotive connotation of unable to feed and clothe.As ever we get spin and not a clear unbiased description from all sides.0
-
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.0 -
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.7 -
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.3 -
Agree, the costs will eventually be passed onto tenants.I hadn't noticed that either.
I still find some of this bizarre. Effectively they have now added NI to non employment income. It's about time NI was removed completely from the system and we just had one 'income' tax and make everyone's life a lot easier. Fortunately I have no property income, have no savings (that are taxable) and the only dividend income is in ISA's or Pensions!
With new BTL's lucky to net 4% before this, I can only see rentals becoming less available and driving up the already very high rental prices. I must get offered at least 5 or 6 properties a month currently where the landlord wants to sell up and we don't even bother advertising properties anymore as the agent always has around 150 people registered and waiting. (And before anyone asks they aren't my properties, but those owned by a friendly society where I am a trustee).
The government justified the 2% increase by linking it to NI. There are various reasons why charging NI on savings was a non-starter from a legislative position...so they adjusted tax rates instead, Of course, quite how many people remember this was a substitute NI charge in future is open to question. I suspect the cat is now out the bag with regards separate rental income rates and future governments might be tempted to increase the rate in future when it becomes palatable to punish landlords again (it pretty much always is). It isn't exactly helping their much vaunted tax simplification efforts either (plus ca change)
Landlords have taken a real beating over the last few years and it has reached the point where the post tax yields probably don't justify the effort any more.
The government are clearly trying to boost investment in UK PLC. The EMI extension of qualifying criteria and particularly exercise period to 15 years was interesting. Average time from formation to IPO in the UK is 13 years so the EMI extension allows a far more realistic realisation of value in EMI going forward. This was also a bit of an attempted boost to the LSE who have been struggling for awhile.
Coupled with forcing those fortunate (foolish?) enough to max out on cash ISAs into stocks and shares, the government are definitely trying to make the UK more investor friendly for start ups and scale ups. Whether it really moves the dial around investment appetite at a time when finances are being stretched ever more by fiscal drag, we'll have to see. The moves they've made for investors are quite clever but would be far easier to praise if the rest of the budget was equally pro-growth.0 -
On the ISA policy, there's no requirement for that marginal £8k to be in UK equities I'm guessing?
So £8k in an S&P 500 ETF is fine?2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yup was my point previously, I think there's little chance that most people will suddenly have a S&S ISA that didn't before, and even less that everyone will invest in UK stocks. I'm thinking of starting up a campaign to get everyone to invest in non UKHuskaris said:On the ISA policy, there's no requirement for that marginal £8k to be in UK equities I'm guessing?
So £8k in an S&P 500 ETF is fine?
I think also, now you will no longer be able to transfer between S&S and Cash will also kibosh it, I suspect a lot will transfer before April.0 -
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈2 -
I think the biggest difference between now and 20 years ago is the amount of otherwise intelligently people who make excuses for fecklessness.Rob7Lee said:
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈
Nothing is ever anyone's fault. It's a bizarre society we live in.4 -
30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.Rob7Lee said:
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈
Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics
0 -
Being a Luddite I have no idea re side hustles and what it mean, but I assume it’s some kind businesses venture and therefore you all pay the appropriate taxes on these hustles? Or is it undeclared?0
-
It should be declared, and if you sell on Etsy, like myself and Canters/ his misses does, they pass data onto HMRC.CharltonKerry said:Being a Luddite I have no idea re side hustles and what it mean, but I assume it’s some kind businesses venture and therefore you all pay the appropriate taxes on these hustles? Or is it undeclared?1 -
Cheers, never heard of it until recently and wondered if that was the case.Huskaris said:
It should be declared, and if you sell on Etsy, like myself and Canters'/ his misses does, they pass data onto HMRC.CharltonKerry said:Being a Luddite I have no idea re side hustles and what it mean, but I assume it’s some kind businesses venture and therefore you all pay the appropriate taxes on these hustles? Or is it undeclared?0 -
I’m not sure if that’s a complaint or not?! So FREE childcare for 30 hours a week, what does that cost the government (assume there’s some kind of fixed rate they pay?), you’re not thinking that should cover food and trips as well are you?shine166 said:
30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.Rob7Lee said:
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈
Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics
This isnt a dig at you, but surely 30 hours free childcare care is something to be really pleased with? I wished we’d have had that when we had kids.0 -
Which again misses the point that most of these people didn't plan to be in these situations and are there due to a change in circumstances. Insecure work is a massive factor in people using the benefit system.Rob7Lee said:
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈
I also think you're massively underestimating the number of people who are using side hustles to just keep their heads above water. There are loads. It definitely is keeping people off the benefit system. I think its just that the economic conditions we are living in are so challenging for so many.
I don't disagree with your last 2 paragraphs. I just see the causes as different. I see the excessive power of big large multinational corporations and private equity funds as the issue. This has led to suppressed wages for 2 decades whilst record profits have been burrowed away (largely offshore). The power they have over governments now is extreme. They fund both main parties and reform so know they are safe from any real consequences. I posted exactly what I would do were I chancellor yesterday.
What I think people are missing is whats led to this:
In our society we have 3 "catch alls" - picture like a funnel with the barrow end at the top and wide end at the bottom. In the wide end are 3 nets that catch anyone falling down there. These are the health system, the welfare system and the criminal justice system. These are meant to be the interventions of last resort. 15 years ago we had a number of other smaller nets in the funnel designed to catch people before they fell to the mets at the bottom. Things like sure start, health prevention, public health, educational interventions etc. Etc. These were much less expensive than the nets at the bottom. They were very effective at deflecting people away from the last resort catch alls. These have all been cut or completely removed over time meaning everyone ends up at the nets at the bottom. Which are far more expensive. Couple that with the hostile economic conditions we are now operating in (20 years of suppressed wages, massive growth in inequality, growing poverty, cost of living crisis) meaning more people entering the top of the Funnel and this is where we find ourselves.
Edit: and iver the last 15 years it has become an intergenerational issue. So we are paying for the kids of people who missed out on a prevention intervention. So that's 2 opportunities to deflect them away missed.
Telling people to simply climb their way out of the Funnel isn't gonna be successful on a large scale. The "fund services" part of my post yesterday includes bringing back the prevention elements that were cut but also things like free adult education for those on benefits (could even be a requirement for those with no health/caring needs).
Its cuts that got us in this mess, its not gonna be cuts that get us out.1 -
So we do live in a society? Because the first sentence seems to absolve yourself and society of any societal responsibility.Huskaris said:
I think the biggest difference between now and 20 years ago is the amount of otherwise intelligently people who make excuses for fecklessness.Rob7Lee said:
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈
Nothing is ever anyone's fault. It's a bizarre society we live in.
Also no recognition of how challenging the economic conditions facing most people are right now. The bigger picture like suppressed wages, inequality, poverty etc. But also the very real day to days of the job market, the housing market and cost of living.
I'd say the more bizarre thing is the number of people who have fully bought into hyper indivualism and the idea that there is no societal responsibility. Which by the way, is the new idea that arrived in the 80s with Thatcher and Neo-liberalism. Before that society and community were key to life.1
