Working for a benefit funded lifestyle.

[Berberis]

No , benefits are too high .

 

This is the reason given by the Mayor of Calais as to why there is such a problem with immigrants trying to get to Britain.

[danot]

This might help your case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25287068

More working households were living in poverty in the UK last year than non-working ones - for the first time, a charity has reported.

Just over half of the 13 million people in poverty - surviving on less than 60% of the national median (middle) income - were from working families, it said.

 

I don't know how much this situation as changed since 2011-12 period.

Thanks

In any case, the cost of living rises accordingly with any financial reward they give us. So, I doubt there'll be much of a change since then.

[sutty27]

https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/yes-youre-better-working-benefits-%E2%80%93-its-not-enough-reduce-poverty

 

If you are single person aged over 25 who is unlucky enough to lack a job, this is what you get each week (using JRF’s Minimum Income Calculator, which makes assumptions about rent and council tax, for someone living in social housing):

 

Job Seeker’s Allowance £71.70;

Housing Benefit £73.22 (enough to cover rent on your flat);

Council Tax Support £13.24 (to cover most but not all of your Council Tax of £14.47 following localisation and a 10% cut);

Total disposable income £70.47.

 

If you get a full-time job on the National Minimum Wage (£6.31 an hour) then you will:

 

Earn £236.63 gross;

Pay £11.12 in income tax and £10.52 National Insurance;

Receive back £5.54 in Working Tax Credit (and you don’t even get that if you’re working only part-time);

Get nothing in Housing Benefit & Council Tax Support as your earn too much to make you eligible;

Leaving you with a total income of £132.84 (disposable income of £62.37 a week more than on the dole).

 

But what they don't allow for in their calculation are the additional costs associated with working, like travel. I assume the worker will also have to pay for dentist, prescriptions ect.

[danot]

https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/yes-youre-better-working-benefits-%E2%80%93-its-not-enough-reduce-poverty

 

If you are single person aged over 25 who is unlucky enough to lack a job, this is what you get each week (using JRF’s Minimum Income Calculator, which makes assumptions about rent and council tax, for someone living in social housing):

 

Job Seeker’s Allowance £71.70;

Housing Benefit £73.22 (enough to cover rent on your flat);

Council Tax Support £13.24 (to cover most but not all of your Council Tax of £14.47 following localisation and a 10% cut);

Total disposable income £70.47.

 

If you get a full-time job on the National Minimum Wage (£6.31 an hour) then you will:

 

Earn £236.63 gross;

Pay £11.12 in income tax and £10.52 National Insurance;

Receive back £5.54 in Working Tax Credit (and you don’t even get that if you’re working only part-time);

Get nothing in Housing Benefit & Council Tax Support as your earn too much to make you eligible;

Leaving you with a total income of £132.84 (disposable income of £62.37 a week more than on the dole).

 

But what they don't allow for in their calculation are the additional costs associated with working, like travel. I assume the worker will also have to pay for dentist, prescriptions ect.

 

Forgot to include the accumulated costs of routine dental treatment in my previous post of employment status expenses.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 17:23 ----------

 

Cyclone. Some very interesting points have been raised here. Are you prepared to discuss this further ?

[Mister M]

Stop attaching your own personal sentiment to any views I might hold.

 

I don't begrudge anyone their benefit entitlements, nor am I criticising the system, so stop suggesting that you know otherwise.

 

This thread is addressing the socially observable similarities between the lifestyles and finances of life-choice benefit claimants and low income workers and questions whether the working for relatively the same quality of lifestyle as someone who doesn't work is worth its while or indeed the sensible thing to do.

 

Can I ask what are 'the socially observable similarities between the lifestyles [and finances] of life-choice benefit claimants and low income workers'?

I understand the finances bit, but not the lifestyles

[Dardandec]

Can I ask what are 'the socially observable similarities between the lifestyles [and finances] of life-choice benefit claimants and low income workers'?

I understand the finances bit, but not the lifestyles

 

Yes, the life choice benefit claimants stand outside their tax payer funded housing drinking a can of special brew during the day. The others are out at work funding it.

[danot]

Can I ask what are 'the socially observable similarities between the lifestyles [and finances] of life-choice benefit claimants and low income workers'?

I understand the finances bit, but not the lifestyles

 

I'm referring to the similarities between the quality of life of low income working families and benefit claiming families and the financial limitations that prevent their circumstances from improving.

[Cyclone]

Forgot to include the accumulated costs of routine dental treatment in my previous post of employment status expenses.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 17:23 ----------

 

Cyclone. Some very interesting points have been raised here. Are you prepared to discuss this further ?

 

Some reason that the minimum wage from 2013 was used instead of the current one?

 

So this comparison of the basics shows that the working person has approximately twice as much disposable income, and of course has the opportunity to increase their pay as they become more skilled at their job.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Cyclone

[danot]

Some reason that the minimum wage from 2013 was used instead of the current one?

 

Minimum wage 2013. £6.31

 

Minimum wage 2015 - 2016. £6.70 Providing over 25's in full time work with a weekly increase of £15.60.

 

 

It's hardly a game changer!

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 22:59 ----------

 

Some reason that the minimum wage from 2013 was used instead of the current one?

 

So this comparison of the basics shows that the working person has approximately twice as much disposable income, and of course has the opportunity to increase their pay as they become more skilled at their job.

No, it doesn't show any such thing as certain expenses such as- travelling expenses, lunch costs aren't taken into account, nor is paying for prescriptions, routine dental treatment, kids school dinners, school uniforms and such that isn't s a concern for benefit claimers.

 

I realise that this scenario of yours is designed to strengthen your position, but what makes you so certain that your imaginary employer is in any position to increase the pay of your imaginary employee? Not all employers are you know.

Edited March 20, 2016 by danot

[Cyclone]

You think people who aren't working don't have to eat lunch?

 

Yes there might be a few expenses missing for the working person, but if it's minimum wage hopefully it's close to home and doesn't require any expensive travel.

I'll be cycling to work this morning, that's free, as is walking and running.

 

It wasn't my scenario was it. Good try, but someone else added it up and you asked if I was prepared to comment on it any further.