NHS should prescribe the unemployed money and double dole to pregnant

[Leah-Lacie]

I did make that point in my last post. You're broadly right, but you're a little behind.

 

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Welfare_trends_report_2014_dn2B.pdf page 55

 

To summarise:

Personal tax credits: £27b (also goes to the employed on low incomes, text of report suggests over half goes to the households doing a total of under 16 hours a week of work)

Child benefit: £11.7b (goes to most people with kids, not just the unemployed)

JSA: £3.4b

The housing benefit and bill for the under 16 hours criteria is £40b.

You may not want to count this, but the council tax payout for those same households is about the same again.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't like the idea of giving them even more.

 

 

On the subject of Tax Credits - I believe you have to be working at least 16 hours as a single person, or 24 hours as part of a couple before you are able to claim working tax credits.

I assume the figure you posted includes both child and working tax credits, without a breakdown of each.

As an example. I you work 16 hours, and you have a partner who works 8 hours in order to make up the 24 hours a week threshold, and you have 4 children, your weekly tax credits payment will be in the region of £300. I think that is roughly £100 in CTC and £200 in WTC. You will still get full housing and council tax benefit allowed according to your LHA. So from the figures you posted, the tax credits claimants are also the ones who are claiming the housing benefit - Employed people on a low wage, rather than the long term employed.

 

As a single person with 2 children, working 16 hours a week, your weekly tax credit payments will be in the region of £200 - You will then again also still be entitled to a large amount of housing and council tax benefit, although probably will have to contribute a little bit more than in the scenario above.

 

If you were going to disregard tax credits figures from your calculations, it isn't really possible to do so without also disregarding a large proportion of the housing and council tax benefits too.

[Cyclone]

Isn't the total UK welfare bill about £200b?

That's out of a budget of about £750b?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330717/PESA_2014_-_print.pdf (page 18)

 

See previous discussion about how this value actually breaks down.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 14:04 ----------

 

Hang on a minute its not been a problem for 100s of years a few decades maybe. Child benefits havent been going on for 100s of years.

 

There are many people out there making this decision all the time. I cannot afford another child. How can I pay for one?

 

And for hundreds of years there have been children living in poverty, working in the poor house, abandoned to orphanages where they were sometimes abused, sold or just simply forced to work. I don't think we should be in any rush to return to those times.

[TheRocketMan]

I think its time to pay people £1000 for sterilisation

 

We'd half the unwanted births and benefit scroungers overnight.

[unbeliever]

See previous discussion about how this value actually breaks down.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 14:04 ----------

 

 

And for hundreds of years there have been children living in poverty, working in the poor house, abandoned to orphanages where they were sometimes abused, sold or just simply forced to work. I don't think we should be in any rush to return to those times.

 

I have broken this down already:

 

Personal tax credits: £27b of which over half goes to those households working a total of under 16 hours per week

Child benefit: £11.7b (I'll exclude this as I haven't yet found the breakdown)

JSA: £3.4b (all to the unemployed

The housing benefit and bill for the under 16 hours criteria is £40b.

You may not want to count this, but the council tax payout for those same households is about the same again.

 

Total cost of the households working a total of under 16 hours/week:

~£14b in tax credits

~£3.4b in JSA

~£3b in housing benefit

~£3b in council tax

 

So a total is £20b/year if you exclude council tax and £23b/year if you include it.

 

Not to mention that they're in receipt of public services, including many that are not available to the rest of us such a free prescriptions etc, without significantly contributing.

 

Nobody wants these people to live in genuine poverty, but how much free money and services is enough?

 

Still want to give them more money in a way which encourages the known practise of having kids to increase ones benefits?

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 15:37 ----------

 

I seriously doubt that the extra benefit is in excess of the cost of raising a child.

 

It most certainly is if you're minded to spend the bare minimum on the child.

Edited June 25, 2015 by unbeliever

[Leah-Lacie]

I have broken this down already:

 

Personal tax credits: £27b of which over half goes to those households working a total of under 16 hours per week

Child benefit: £11.7b (I'll exclude this as I haven't yet found the breakdown)

JSA: £3.4b (all to the unemployed

The housing benefit and bill for the under 16 hours criteria is £40b.

You may not want to count this, but the council tax payout for those same households is about the same again.

 

Total cost of the households working a total of under 16 hours/week:

~£14b in tax credits

~3.4b in JSA

~40b in housing benefit

~40b in council tax

 

So a total is £57b/year if you exclude council tax and £97b/year if you include it.

 

Not to mention that they're in receipt of public services, including many that are not available to the rest of us such a free prescriptions etc, without significantly contributing.

 

Nobody wants these people to live in genuine poverty, but how much free money and services is enough?

 

Still want to give them more money in a way which encourages the known practise of having kids to increase ones benefits?

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 15:37 ----------

 

 

It most certainly is if you're minded to spend the bare minimum on the child.

 

 

In your breakdown, you have stated that the housing benefits bill just for those who work under 16 hours is £40b...

 

In this article http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/apr/24/housing-benefit-bill-soar-25-billion-2017

It is stated that the housing benefit bill will '"soar" to £25b in the next few years. This is the total bill, including for people who work and are on a low income.

[unbeliever]

In your breakdown, you have stated that the housing benefits bill just for those who work under 16 hours is £40b...

 

In this article http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/apr/24/housing-benefit-bill-soar-25-billion-2017

It is stated that the housing benefit bill will '"soar" to £25b in the next few years. This is the total bill, including for people who work and are on a low income.

 

My apologies. I misread the table on page 22 of http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Welfare_trends_report_2014_dn2B.pdf. Obvious now you point it out.

Housing benefit bill for the <16 hours is £3b, not £40b.

I'll correct the previous posts.

[Leah-Lacie]

My apologies. I misread the table on page 22 of http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Welfare_trends_report_2014_dn2B.pdf. Obvious now you point it out.

Housing benefit bill for the <16 hours is £3b, not £40b.

I'll correct the previous posts.

 

So it as I thought, the majority of the housing benefit bill does go to people who do work and are on a low wage, rather the long term unemployed (that working under 16 hours criteria does include the unemployed, right?). I didn't think it could be quite right.

 

The figures I can find for the housing benefits bill seem to be around the £25b region, in total per year.

[unbeliever]

So it as I thought, the majority of the housing benefit bill does go to people who do work and are on a low wage, rather the long term unemployed (that working under 16 hours criteria does include the unemployed, right?). I didn't think it could be quite right.

 

The figures I can find for the housing benefits bill seem to be around the £25b region, in total per year.

 

Yes, but people working full time are clearly making an effort. They don't cultivate reasonable resentment from others.

 

Don't you think it reasonable that people should be expected to do their utmost to provide for their own children? Only if they have honestly tried their hardest and still failing to provide adequately for their children do they deserve our full respect. Would you not agree?

 

£20b/year is a hell of a lot of money. If we could recover it, there'd be little need for public spending restraint elsewhere.

We'd also raise more tax revenue without increasing rates if these people were properly employed.

Edited June 25, 2015 by unbeliever

[Leah-Lacie]

Where do people get the idea that the long term unemployed are a) a large group of people, b) get a large amount of money?

Or indeed c) that increased benefits would cause many more people to choose this as a lifestyle.

 

Isn't the total UK welfare bill about £200b?

That's out of a budget of about £750b?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330717/PESA_2014_-_print.pdf (page 18)

 

I agree with your sentiments, but I don't think that having children for extra benefit money is a genuine life choice for many people, not anywhere near as many as some people think. It's as crazy really as someone having a child just so they can fill up their spare bedroom and avoid the bedroom tax.

 

However, all I was doing with trying to get a breakdown of the figures you were quoting was trying to point out that the majority of the welfare bill doesn't go to the long term unemployed, which is what it seemed you were implying was your line of thought with the above quote. The majority of the welfare bill in fact goes to people who do work, either part time, or possibly more, but are on a low wage, and need to have their wages subsidised. The long term unemployed, who are genuinely long term unemployed, actually make up quite a small percentage of the total figures.

[woodmally]

See previous discussion about how this value actually breaks down.

 

---------- Post added 25-06-2015 at 14:04 ----------

 

 

And for hundreds of years there have been children living in poverty, working in the poor house, abandoned to orphanages where they were sometimes abused, sold or just simply forced to work. I don't think we should be in any rush to return to those times.

 

Right and what was different between those times and now. Three things life expectancy, child labour is illegal and we have rules surrounding abuse. Also contraception is available. To quote Jeremy Kyle the parents could put something on the end of it but yet they chose not to. So you cannot compare now with that far back.

 

We just want people to take some responsibility for their offspring or producing offspring and not expect us to pay for them. Unless they are temporarily out of work which is understandable and we should support them till their parents go back in employment.