Was George Osborne right?
Discussion
MissyMac said:
I've just done a quick calculation on how much benefit he (Philpott) and his family would be entitled to and it is nowhere near 70K. The newspaper are just increasing it every time I read a story about him. I think that the case is just being used as a political tool.
All the reports I have read have made a calculation which determines the benefit, and then calculate a figure which he would have had to earn by working in a job in order to get the estimated amount of said benefits after tax, national insurance and so on. I can't be bothered to determine if the primary and secondary calculations were correct. Of course there is also the problem that these calculations don't know all the particular ins and outs of what was being claimed. To think that he would get 70k in benefits is absurd and shows lack of thinking the situation through.
FiF said:
MissyMac said:
I've just done a quick calculation on how much benefit he (Philpott) and his family would be entitled to and it is nowhere near 70K. The newspaper are just increasing it every time I read a story about him. I think that the case is just being used as a political tool.
All the reports I have read have made a calculation which determines the benefit, and then calculate a figure which he would have had to earn by working in a job in order to get the estimated amount of said benefits after tax, national insurance and so on. I can't be bothered to determine if the primary and secondary calculations were correct. Of course there is also the problem that these calculations don't know all the particular ins and outs of what was being claimed. To think that he would get 70k in benefits is absurd and shows lack of thinking the situation through.
MissyMac said:
I've just done a quick calculation on how much benefit he (Philpott) and his family would be entitled to and it is nowhere near 70K. The newspaper are just increasing it every time I read a story about him. I think that the case is just being used as a political tool.
What's your figure?FiF said:
All the reports I have read have made a calculation which determines the benefit, and then calculate a figure which he would have had to earn by working in a job in order to get the estimated amount of said benefits after tax, national insurance and so on.
The Mail started off saying he was getting £25K/yr in benefits and is now saying he was "in the £100K/yr club".Osborne was right.
I went out with a girl on benefits years ago. She had 3 children, we worked out she made the equivalent of £21k from the state.
As she had no qualifications or working experience the best she could hope for if she took a job would be something like stacking shelves for a hell of a lot less than that.
So, there was absolutely no incentive for her to get a job even though she wanted to work.
People do think about ways get more from the system, they may not be in the majority but the more that use the system to its fullest, then the more people in similar situations may see what other people can get and they want the same.
Then you get the other people like Phillpot who are even greedier and push things farther. What he did was disgusting. He gambled with his childrens lives and it all went wrong. He did not murder them.
He was about to lose some free earnings. He made a gamble which, if it had paid off he would have not only kept his high free earnings but increased them and moved up the housing ladder.
If the system wasn't so badly managed then this would never have happened, obviously, but Phillpot would probably have done something else outside the law, as he isn't a law abiding type of person.
But yes the system has enabled people to abuse it. It has for some, become a lifestyle choice. Which, although not glamorous, certainly some people (many) make a very decent living compared to other hard working people who refuse hand outs.
I went out with a girl on benefits years ago. She had 3 children, we worked out she made the equivalent of £21k from the state.
As she had no qualifications or working experience the best she could hope for if she took a job would be something like stacking shelves for a hell of a lot less than that.
So, there was absolutely no incentive for her to get a job even though she wanted to work.
People do think about ways get more from the system, they may not be in the majority but the more that use the system to its fullest, then the more people in similar situations may see what other people can get and they want the same.
Then you get the other people like Phillpot who are even greedier and push things farther. What he did was disgusting. He gambled with his childrens lives and it all went wrong. He did not murder them.
He was about to lose some free earnings. He made a gamble which, if it had paid off he would have not only kept his high free earnings but increased them and moved up the housing ladder.
If the system wasn't so badly managed then this would never have happened, obviously, but Phillpot would probably have done something else outside the law, as he isn't a law abiding type of person.
But yes the system has enabled people to abuse it. It has for some, become a lifestyle choice. Which, although not glamorous, certainly some people (many) make a very decent living compared to other hard working people who refuse hand outs.
Deva Link said:
FiF said:
All the reports I have read have made a calculation which determines the benefit, and then calculate a figure which he would have had to earn by working in a job in order to get the estimated amount of said benefits after tax, national insurance and so on.
The Mail started off saying he was getting £25K/yr in benefits and is now saying he was "in the £100K/yr club"."Then you get the other people like Phillpot who are even greedier and push things farther. What he did was disgusting. He gambled with his childrens lives and it all went wrong. He did not murder them.
He was about to lose some free earnings. He made a gamble which, if it had paid off he would have not only kept his high free earnings but increased them and moved up the housing ladder."
An assumption in itself dependant on lot's of "if's"
There is no particular reason to think he would have been given a larger property
There is no particular reason to think his earnings would have increased prior to what they were before the children were removed. He was a moron who thought that because he thought it his idea's would naturally follow suit.
He was about to lose some free earnings. He made a gamble which, if it had paid off he would have not only kept his high free earnings but increased them and moved up the housing ladder."
An assumption in itself dependant on lot's of "if's"
There is no particular reason to think he would have been given a larger property
There is no particular reason to think his earnings would have increased prior to what they were before the children were removed. He was a moron who thought that because he thought it his idea's would naturally follow suit.
deltashad said:
I went out with a girl on benefits years ago. She had 3 children, we worked out she made the equivalent of £21k from the state.
As she had no qualifications or working experience the best she could hope for if she took a job would be something like stacking shelves for a hell of a lot less than that.
So, there was absolutely no incentive for her to get a job even though she wanted to work.
What people often ignore is that if she got a job she'd still get a fair amount of benefits on top. Child benefit continues regardless and she'd likely get housing benefit and council tax relief.As she had no qualifications or working experience the best she could hope for if she took a job would be something like stacking shelves for a hell of a lot less than that.
So, there was absolutely no incentive for her to get a job even though she wanted to work.
For someone like her, though, childcare costs kill all point of working.
Sweeping generalisation, but they're not usually as hard up as they make out - some of the fathers will be bunging them money now and again, and things like a telly, games consoles and trainers just "appear".
MissyMac said:
An income of 25K per year would make things very tight for a family that size. Unless, that doesn't include housing benefit and council tax payments.
Life on benefits should be tight, it should be very tight, it should allow you to survive but little more. Sounds harsh? Anything else is unaffordable, which is where we are now. The only way people can be rewarded for contributing to society is for them to realise that it is a better option, when taking is better than giving you have potential disaster.WhereamI said:
MissyMac said:
An income of 25K per year would make things very tight for a family that size. Unless, that doesn't include housing benefit and council tax payments.
Life on benefits should be tight, it should be very tight, it should allow you to survive but little more. Sounds harsh? Anything else is unaffordable, which is where we are now. The only way people can be rewarded for contributing to society is for them to realise that it is a better option, when taking is better than giving you have potential disaster.Labour turning against Ed on the welfare debate
Going to make his comments over the last few days look very stupid indeed.
Going to make his comments over the last few days look very stupid indeed.
CaptainSlow said:
WhereamI said:
longblackcoat said:
rohrl said:
They got child benefit but so does everyone.
That universal benefit is no longer universal.
MissyMac said:
An income of 25K per year would make things very tight for a family that size. Unless, that doesn't include housing benefit and council tax payments.
It doesn't. You have to take into account the money he didn't have to pay because it was covered by benefits, so on top of the benefits add the money he didn't have to pay out that those of us who work do - council taxetc.George 100% right, child support/benefit should be limited at 2 children maximum, ideally if you can't afford children you take responsibility and don't have them at all, but that would be a step too far in today's UK! Likewise with property. Maximum 2 bedroom accommodation. You would soon see these retards change their tune if they thought knocking out sprogs would make them worse off
Edited by billzeebub on Monday 8th April 06:12
The whole system is flawed, many and I'm guessing actually most claiming child benefit don't actually need the money for any reason yet still claim and are still given it.
The only break I catch is a discount on council tax, whoopee. I should have had a few kids in my late teens and would have got a council house rather than have to buy a house.....
The only break I catch is a discount on council tax, whoopee. I should have had a few kids in my late teens and would have got a council house rather than have to buy a house.....
FiF said:
All the reports I have read have made a calculation which determines the benefit, and then calculate a figure which he would have had to earn by working in a job in order to get the estimated amount of said benefits after tax, national insurance and so on.
I can't be bothered to determine if the primary and secondary calculations were correct. Of course there is also the problem that these calculations don't know all the particular ins and outs of what was being claimed. To think that he would get 70k in benefits is absurd and shows lack of thinking the situation through.
I've just gone through one of the many benefits calculators online and using the lowest rate for items such as rent of a similar council house in their area, applicable child benefit etc I come to the figure of £76,141. That includes child benefit and subsidised housing/council tax etc.I can't be bothered to determine if the primary and secondary calculations were correct. Of course there is also the problem that these calculations don't know all the particular ins and outs of what was being claimed. To think that he would get 70k in benefits is absurd and shows lack of thinking the situation through.
Now obviously I'm not on benefits so may have got some questions wrong, so I researched online and chose the lowest benefit figure each time as I said above.
Try one of the calculators yourself.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff