More on benefits

[andrewducker]

Further to the stolen story below on the problems with parents working on the breadline, here's a BBC story:

Parents who find work and come off welfare are more likely to be worse off.

A major study by the Save The Children of 4,000 of the UK's poorest children has found they live in worse conditions than those whose parents are constantly out of work.

Parents in short-term work suffered a dramatic fall in income - and a delay in benefits - once that job ended.

The report also found that the constant job switching affected children's confidence, they were more likely to be bullied, miss out on activities others took for granted, and may go without basics such as warm winter coats and shoes and proper meals.

This is followed by a numerous comments such as:

I am actually now worse off on the new tax credits than I was on the working family's tax credit. Since I have returned to work after having a child and after paying out over £300 a nursery fees (which I don't get any help with through the so called improved tax credits). It works out that I am only £50 a month better off between myself and my partner. I ask myself is it worth missing out on my child growing up just for £50 a month?
Kate Dunn, Wales

The only way to remove the poverty trap created by various benefits is to have a citizen's income. Whatever that figure maybe it must be enough to live off. Then if people choose to work (which they will) they will be better off regardless of what hourly rate they earn. Minimum wage, housing benefit, council tax benefit, free school meals, free bus passes, old age pension, income support etc can then all be scrapped removing the humiliation of having to claim benefits. No families and children would then be caught in poverty.
Roy, London

My two children and I were on Income Support for four years. During that time they always had well-fitting shoes and a winter coat and three meals a day. This involved personal sacrifices and organisation from me, such as not going out much; I never smoked and rarely drank. I bought most of my clothes in second-hand shops and was glad to accept friends hand-me-downs for the kids. Even on this level of income they went on every school trip - even the ones I had to pay for.
Child poverty, as defined in your article, is not always related to income, but to how the parents choose to spend it. Later, I met children without a winter coat and loaned them the ones my children had grown out of - the parents earned more than I do now. I must agree with the report that the loans for essentials system that then reclaims out of already stretched benefits is daft. However no questions are asked when the loans are given such as 'What happened to your last fridge (or whatever)?' I have known of this fund being used just to acquire new furniture etc.
Lyn, UK

As well as the fall in real income that seems to be a result of moving from benefits to low-paid work, what about childcare costs? In the UK good day-care for children is scarce and expensive even for middle class professionals, so what hope do parents in low-paid jobs have?
Here in Belgium we pay much higher taxes and social security than in the UK (I've worked in both countries), but childcare provision is good, affordable and (for children below 3) tax deductible. In the state run crèches in Belgium, low-income families get priority and are charged according to income. Most primary schools also have after school childcare facilities that are not very expensive. It's not commonly said in Belgium that the cost/availability of childcare prevents parents from working.
Rebecca, Belgium

Why does it take so long for agencies to realise the obvious? I was telling my Benefits Office that I couldn't afford to get a job for exactly the reasons described 14 years ago, in 1989. I didn't work for over three years, until our children were old enough to allow my wife to work to make up the difference between my wages and our ex-benefits. Even then we had to move into a smaller rented house, because we could no longer afford to stay where we were. I tried hard to work with the JobCentre to sort out a way that I could get a job, but I couldn't find a permanent position that paid enough, and taking one week of temporary work meant a nightmare of forms, and then weeks without benefits (i.e. food, lighting, heating etc.) While it is so difficult and painful to switch from benefits to working it is easy to understand why people don't bother.
Paul, UK

A small, basic income for everyone (such as that proposed by the Greens) would close this silly loophole. Parents could work flexibly to earn extra money, knowing exactly the impact on their children, rather than being forced into rigid full-time work that might actually reduce their overall income.
Sian, UK

Never mind parents, it's the same story for all unemployed people. The gap between being on benefits and working is too wide to cross unless you can get a very good job. What is needed is benefits to be phased out as earnings increase, gently going from receiving benefits to paying tax.
Jonathan Kelk, UK

When I was on the dole, I had all of my rent and council tax paid for me and received over £200 a fortnight for other bills and food etc. Now I am in full time work, I am up to my eyeballs in debt and have a hard time scraping together enough money to buy nappies for my kids and food for the family. I was much better off on welfare and I can see why so many people stay on it rather than getting a job.
Jon, UK

I think the two biggest culprits for making people worse off are housing costs and council tax. When you are on benefits these two things are generally taken care of but when you go back to work you are stung with having to fork out several hundred pounds every month just to keep a roof over your head.
Rich, UK