WeX Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 This is a good turn of events. Seems that those who want more than £500 a week in benefits (which is approx equal to the average salary in the UK) have been beaten in the counts. The women who brought about this case seemed to think that as they were single parents, they deserved more than £500 per week in state hand outs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818747 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 This is a good turn of events. Seems that those who want more than £500 a week in benefits (which is approx equal to the average salary in the UK) have been beaten in the counts. Are the benefits taxed? If not it's the equivalent of a salary of around £35,000..far more than the average... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 Are the benefits taxed? If not it's the equivalent of a salary of around £35,000..far more than the average... No, good point. I was being far too simplistic. A yearly salary of £34,090.00 is equal to £500 per week after tax and NI. That's 104% of the UK national average salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 £500 per week isn't much if it's to include housing benefit for those living in and around London with 3 kids. People will be forced to move then I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 £500 per week isn't much if it's to include housing benefit for those living in and around London with 3 kids. People will be forced to move then I guess. Are you saying that only people on salaries over 35k live in London? Geunuine question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, said the "cruel and arbitrary" measure was "reminiscent of the days of the workhouse", and the women feared it would leave them destituteSome days I am ashamed to be part of the legal profession. £500 pw= workhouse? FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 £500 per week isn't much if it's to include housing benefit for those living in and around London with 3 kids. People will be forced to move then I guess. I would love to live in Knightsbridge, but I cant afford it, so I don't. Why does this women have the right to demand to live where she obviously cannot afford to, paid for by the tax payer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Some days I am ashamed to be part of the legal profession. £500 pw= workhouse? FFS! Will the action have been funded by legal aid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Will the action have been funded by legal aid?I don't know. According to the online Legal Aid Checker (Gov website), and making a lot of assumptions based on the Claimants' basic info in the linked article in the OP: 1 What kind of problem do you need help with? Welfare benefits 2 Have you appealed against a benefits decision? Yes 3 Has your case been heard by a social security tribunal? Yes 4 Do you want to appeal against the tribunal's decision? Yes 5 Are you or your partner on certain benefits? Yes 6 Are you or your partner 60 or over? No 7 Do you and your partner have more than £8,000 in savings, shares, investments or property? No = You may be able to get legal aid to pay for help and advice. Hopefully the action will have been undertaken under some sort of CFA (no win-no fee) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 I don't know. Hopefully the action will have been undertaken under a CFA (no win-no fee) I think it was probably paid for by the Child Poverty Action Group and the Women's Aid Federation who supported their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.