Paying benefits for a maximum of 2 children - solve societys ills?

[mickw]

And when you take into account all these benefits, you will find that the benefits per person decreases.

 

 

 

source

 

Consider then, the rate per room for January 2011;

 

Single U25= £65

Single 25+ = £98.08

2 Bed = £114.23/2 = £57.115

3 Bed = £121.15/3 = £40.5

4 Bed = £161.54/4 = £40.385

5 Bed = £219.23/5 = £43.846

 

For October 2010 these figures were;

 

 

As you can see, the more rooms, generally the less per person, and the 5 bed rate is the maximum, which makes 5bed+ properties yield even less per room.

(Thus they are more profitable if bought on a B2L basis and rented out as HMOs rather than as family homes, which is kind of true for all properties bar 1 bedroomed ones)

 

Now consider, the bedroom calculation...

 

 

 

So a couple with 8 children under 16, 4 of them sons and 4 of them daughters, would only be entitled to the 5 bed rate, which is currently £219.23 (£43.846 per room). Per person, this would be less than £22.

 

Yet the housing benefit component of a household containing one person could be as high as (and generally is) £98.08 per person (in Sheffield).

 

Likewise with the council tax, even taking into account the 25% single discount and generally higher bands for larger properties, considering the majority of housing in Sheffield is band A.

 

All very convincing, but it doesn't stop them applying for and getting bigger houses because they are ultimately not paying for any of it we are.

They are in receipt of many different types of benefits.

 

Who can blame them if the state allows this to happen and apparently they condone it, why not take advantage of a weak system.

 

I work to pay for what I get and struggle to pay my mortgage etc..

Yet I probably would be better off on the dole, except I couldn't live with myself if I did that.

 

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

[bobbie]

OK, the leftys are squealing 'its not right'etc....

 

Lets look at it this way............

 

If a man is working

 

Lets say the man is working, and his net income is £25,000 per year (good wage - just irresponsible), and the 3rd woman is pregnant and needs homing by the taxpayer.

 

40% of £25,000 = £10,000 per annum, or £833 a month this man pays for 3 kids

60% of £25,000 = £15,000 per annum, or £1250 a month this man pays for 4 kids

 

For all those who think this is harsh, do you know how much it costs for a working man/woman to run just one 3 bedroomed house? I bet you would need at least £1200 a month coming in just to support ONE 3 BEDROOMED HOUSE.

 

So, a man with a net salary of £2500, is only paying £833 a month for his children to live in 3 DIFFERENT HOMES. If he gets the 4th woman pregnant, he is still only paying £1250 a month for FOUR HOUSES !!!

 

When you think about it, that is not a bad deal. If a working man/woman had a net salary of £25000 a year, there is no way on earth they could afford to run 4 different homes, with council taxs, bills etc.....

 

 

 

If the man is on benefits

 

Lets say the man is on benefits, and is on £65 a week benefits = £3380 a year in money, he now has got the 3rd woman pregnant and she needs homing by the taxpayer.

 

40% of £3380 = £112 a month this man pays to support 3 kids

60% of £3380 = £169 a month this man pays to support his kids

 

This is still a very fair deal, this man pays £169 a month for FOUR DIFFERENT 3 BEDROOMED HOMES. How on earth can anyone say that this solution is not fair?

[discodown]

OK, the leftys are squealing 'its not right'etc....

 

Lets look at it this way............

 

If a man is working

 

Lets say the man is working, and his net income is £25,000 per year (good wage - just irresponsible), and the 3rd woman is pregnant and needs homing by the taxpayer.

 

40% of £25,000 = £10,000 per annum, or £833 a month this man pays for 3 kids

60% of £25,000 = £15,000 per annum, or £1250 a month this man pays for 4 kids

 

For all those who think this is harsh, do you know how much it costs for a working man/woman to run just one 3 bedroomed house? I bet you would need at least £1200 a month coming in just to support ONE 3 BEDROOMED HOUSE.

 

So, a man with a net salary of £2500, is only paying £833 a month for his children to live in 3 DIFFERENT HOMES. If he gets the 4th woman pregnant, he is still only paying £1250 a month for FOUR HOUSES !!!

 

When you think about it, that is not a bad deal. If a working man/woman had a net salary of £25000 a year, there is no way on earth they could afford to run 4 different homes, with council taxs, bills etc.....

 

 

 

If the man is on benefits

 

Lets say the man is on benefits, and is on £65 a week benefits = £3380 a year in money, he now has got the 3rd woman pregnant and she needs homing by the taxpayer.

 

40% of £3380 = £112 a month this man pays to support 3 kids

60% of £3380 = £169 a month this man pays to support his kids

 

This is still a very fair deal, this man pays £169 a month for FOUR DIFFERENT 3 BEDROOMED HOMES. How on earth can anyone say that this solution is not fair?

Nobodies saying its not fair on the parents, everyones saying its not fair on the kids which is totally different. I agree dads should be paying for the kids and having wages/benefits diverted to do so but thats a seperate argument than not paying benefits for children

[bobbie]

Nobodies saying its not fair on the parents, everyones saying its not fair on the kids which is totally different. I agree dads should be paying for the kids and having wages/benefits diverted to do so but thats a seperate argument than not paying benefits for children

 

 

Would this solution not forced the women to be more choosey about who they have unproteced sex with, or not to put themself in a situation where they could be taken advantage of?

[mickw]

Or take advantage of some unsuspecting man, who is probably more choosy when he's sober, but she's forced herself on him!

 

You really need to be more carefull with the man bashing in this thread.

[bobbie]

Or take advantage of some unsuspecting man, who is probably more choosy when he's sober, but she's forced herself on him!

 

You really need to be more carefull with the man bashing in this thread.

 

 

 

OK - lets throw it back onto the woman, its not a man bashing thread.

 

She has got 2 kids, a free 3 bed home all paid for by the taxpayer, so any money she has in benefits is pure spending money.

 

The 2 kids have a seperate bedroom each, and so does she.

 

If she has another child, then 2 of the kids have to share a bedroom and she has no extra money to provide for the 3rd.

 

Would this situation not force the woman to think about insisting on contraception if she chose to have sex?

 

She can't use the "I was drunk and didn't realise" as an excuse, as she probably has done that twice before

[discodown]

Would this solution not forced the women to be more choosey about who they have unproteced sex with, or not to put themself in a situation where they could be taken advantage of?

You're working on the assumption that everyone is smart and rational and constantly makes good decisions, the world isn't like that. Taking away benefits isn't going to solve a problem. It is going to create lots of new ones though. You're going to penalise everyone not just people on benefits thats where the whole thing falls down. There are so many scenarios you're not covering that the whole thing causes more harm than good.

 

Firstly when you say benefits do you include child tax credits and child benefit in that?

 

If you don't and you just want to punish people who don't get a wage then how do you plan to enforce it? How are you going to pay to administer it? What are you going to do if people have kids they can't afford and abandon them or whole families split up or you plunge people even further into poverty?

 

Is it cheaper to pay out benefit than it is for the state to house, feed and clothe a child in care? If not then your going to cause financial difficulties for the government, who's going to pick up that bill?

[retrogo]

OK - lets throw it back onto the woman, its not a man bashing thread.

 

She has got 2 kids, a free 3 bed home all paid for by the taxpayer, so any money she has in benefits is pure spending money.

 

The 2 kids have a seperate bedroom each, and so does she.

 

If she has another child, then 2 of the kids have to share a bedroom and she has no extra money to provide for the 3rd.

 

Would this situation not force the woman to think about insisting on contraception if she chose to have sex?

 

She can't use the "I was drunk and didn't realise" as an excuse, as she probably has done that twice before

 

When it comes people who carelessly increase the sizes of their families beyond their financial means. Councils up and down the country could inforce the statutory overcrowding legislation, rather than using their own relaxed rules. It might make people think twice about having too many kids.

[discodown]

She has got 2 kids, a free 3 bed home all paid for by the taxpayer, so any money she has in benefits is pure spending money

Does she not have to pay water, gas, electricity, TV license, phone, travel, food, school dinner money? Just because you get rent and council tax paid does'nt mean you're rolling in disposable income

[bobbie]

Does she not have to pay water, gas, electricity, TV license, phone, travel, food, school dinner money? Just because you get rent and council tax paid does'nt mean you're rolling in disposable income

 

 

 

True, but if your not paying council tax and rent, then thats at least £450 a month you don't have to find.

 

If its a 3 bed home, with £500 a rent, and at least £100 in council tax, thats £600 that someone would have to find each month if they were in employment.

 

Agreed not rolling in it, but a huge help upwards.