How The Benefit Trap Works ....

Amongst all the rows over who has been most affected by the public sector cuts introduced by this Government there was a couple of nuggets that simply had to be rehashed and mulled over. These were the impact that capping at state benefits at £26,000 (net!) may have on those on long-term welfare claimants.

Now lets start with a few points .... most unemployed benefit claimants don't get much more than the basic benefits, plus housing benefits .... so a man, wife and two children, living in a local authority rented accommodation, in the North West of England, might be on £100.95 (Couple Allowance) + £17.40 (Family Premium) + £115.14 (£57.57 per child) ..... a grand total of £233.49 pw or £12,141.48 pa in benefits plus an average of £84.24 per week in housing benefits paid direct to the landlords. This represents a net income of £16,521.96 pa (the housing benefit element will differ in areas, but the main benefit income will not).

Now in order to 'earn' that amount net, a 'worker' would have to be on a salary of £21,291 pa ..... i.e. a starting salary that is higher than that offered on many non skilled jobs ..... and this is where the 'benefit trap' starts, because in reality no one is going to get up every day, pay for transport etc without being a lot better off, so a salary of at least £500 pw (£26,000 pa) is the realistic figure that would get this particular claimant back to work (but note: If they are in expensive accommodation they may never want to come off welfare benefit payments, which is why housing benefits will be capped at at £400 a week).

For single people the incentive to work is greater as they are on either (£51.85 and £65.45 pw ... under or over age 25).

You, like me, may think that these levels of benefits for people with kids, represent a quite high hurdle against finding work, when they are set above the lower levels of wages currently paid in the UK, so imagine what happens when they have large numbers of children or like Kellie-Ann Cottam, who apparently suffers from a painful disability called Ehlers Danlos syndrome, and needs help to care for her four children (to three different fathers) ..... to maintain the same lifestyle, she said she would need to earn £60,000 (£41,710.40 net) a year to meet her family's needs.

Now let us be honest, she is basically unemployable, she has no skills (psychology graduates litter the lower levels of many offices .... salary around £18k, so no good to her with her lifestyle), that could ever give her a career that would give her the £60,000 a year, which she considers to be the reasonable equivalent to living off the back of those of us who have to get to work everyday for a lot less than that.

Through the government's motability scheme she has also been given a specially adapted people carrier for herself and her children, who are aged between seven months and 14 years of age, oh, and she also gets free prescriptions, school meals for the children and free trips to the dentist and the optician .... she has been on the Benefit System for ten years, so she has managed to have relationships that produced at least two children, but somehow not ever managed to come off welfare payments.

She in fact epitomises all that's wrong with the benefits system .... "I am so grateful for the benefits system, I don't have a husband, I don't have a breadwinner - the state is my breadwinner," she said. Well I didn't get asked if I wanted to be her and her broods 'breadwinner', and nor did anyone else ..... still in all fairness this lady has admitted that the 'Benefit Trap' exists for her and that shes in it, and she has tried to launch a self help scheme called “Challenge Britain” to try to end people’s reliance on handouts ...... presumably not for herself though.

Final word on this benefit system to a woman from Grimsby ... A pub regular called Amanda said: "Don't cut the benefits for the people who are really, really struggling. I don't think it's fair - we are struggling enough as it is. I live on £174 a fortnight and it's not fair." ....... the keys to this statement is that the interview was 'lunchtime' in the pub where 'Amanda' was 'a pub regular' ..... and she thinks she is 'really struggling'.

She should read the diary of an unemployed family from living in York in 1910, where a Mr Nevinson was having a very hard time..... if he didn't find a job, he and his family didn't eat. From his diary its apparent that the family were only eating about a third of the calories they needed.

"Up at five, walked round and round the town until 12. Nothing doing anywhere, so I was fairly sick of walking about. No breakfast, no tea and no supper. Went to bed around 7.30."

The Watsons - Victorian Poor

The diaries reveal that in one week the family had just tea and bread for most meals. Occasionally they could afford margarine or jam as well. Sundays seemed plentiful in comparison.

Monday:

• Breakfast - Tea, bread and margarine
• Dinner - Tea, bread and margarine
• Supper - Tea, bread

Tuesday:

• Breakfast -Tea, bread and jam
• Dinner - Tea, 3 stale buns
• Supper - Tea, bread

 Sunday:

• Breakfast - Tea, kippers, bread
• Dinner - three pennyworth of meat pieces boiled with potatoes
• Tea - bread and margarine, onions

PS: If you agree with me that the "Benefit Trap" has to be addressed, before Britain can ever tackle the welfare culture, then email this article or a link to your MP or your representative in Congress (the problem is the same in much of the US) .... China, India and Brazil don't have this problem, and people work.