On 18/11/2017 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

?????

The contributory rates are neither here nor there. It isthe means-tested
rates whichis where the action is.

A couple with three children get about £319 a week, plus housing costs
plus council tax paid, plus free prescriptions (if any) plus free school
meals.

Assuming housing costs and council tax to be about £600 a month in total
(no great amount these days), it comes to about £458 a week (£23816 a
year, which would be limited to £23,000 a year in London).

£23,000 a year net is the equivalent of something in excess of £29,000 a
year gross.

What were you saying? A "pittance"?

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

So what?

You really do need to compare like for like.

No, you don't. You simply have to decide whether £23,000 (equivalent to
over £29,000 gross) is a "pittance" or not.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents
aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to
support them?

No. I would just like people not to describe incomes equivalent to
£29,000 (higher than the average salary) as a "pittance".

It isn't one, yet it is an easy to reach figure in London and the SE.

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Indeed. I have said many times that single people get a raw deal from
means tested benefits compared to those with children.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

What was that about like for like?