h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There seem to be a couple of families in the tabloids over the past couple of weeks who have numerous children and are earning a fortune by scrounging off the state. One figure I saw this morning was 12 children, giving an income of £40k per year. This family was living in a state-provided 5-bedroom house and were not looking for work, being very happy with their income.

Am I right to be suspicious of this story? Having recently had a child, UK child benefit is a pittance (and drops after the first child). Totting up figures I found on the net for child benefit x 12 plus Jobseekers Allowance x 2, I come out at around £15k - and that assumes they are actively seeking work.

Does anyone know any of the facts behind these cases? Is something significant (disabilty allowance?) being left out? Is the market cost of similar housing included in the 'headline figure'? Or is it really a scandal?

Gif

The current government and media approach to benefits seems to be to cite extreme cases (accurately or not) and then use a small number of isolated (and possibly distorted) cases as the pretext for an attack on the whole system. Exceptional cases make bad law.

I'm not familiar with that particular story, but I can't help thinking that 40k is not a lot of money for a family of 12 children. Assuming two parents, that's fourteen people living on 40k and in a five bedroom house. Assuming that the parents have one bedroom, that's an average of three kids per bedroom, and 2.5k each per year. I'm not saying that others aren't worse off, but this is hardly the lap of luxury or the life of Riley. I expect that a large chunk of that 40k will probably be housing - five bedroom houses aren't cheap to rent.

Whether the parents can legitimately be expected to seek work is another question. I guess it depends upon the age of the children, but if (m)any of them are under 5, it wouldn't be unreasonable for one parent to be off work as a primary carer. Should the other one work? Well, all other things being equal, I'd say yes. But there might be extenuating circumstances. Let's not forget that there aren't enough jobs to go round.

As for whether they should be *allowed* to have 12 children supported by the state, well, that rather depends upon the circumstances - perhaps they have 12 children together, perhaps there are six of one and half a dozen of the other from previous relationships. Perhaps some are fostered, or are grandchildren. Perhaps one or more have special needs.

Even if it is the case that they were having more and more children together that they couldn't afford, then what's the answer? It seems to me that if people don't want this kind of thing to happen, then either:
(a) It involves giving the state sweeping powers of intrusion into matters normally thought of as personal and private and incompatible with a liberal democratic society;
or
(b) It involves penalising the children (who are in no way responsible for the number of siblings they have) by reducing their already fairly low standard of living.

Neither of these are decisive arguments, but both would be hugely radical steps (and not in a good way). Over what? Over a case that's highly exceptional. If there was a deluge of these cases, that would be a different matter.

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to have families of that size, or to expect the state to support them. On the other hand, I think that given that the situation has now arisen, we'd be better off as a state and as a society allowing those children to grow up in decent conditions and allowing their parents to be good parents, raising (we hope) a dozen useful and productive citizens of the future.

And the cost matters not one jot to the national exchequer in relation to the amount of tax dodging that goes on.

I know its a nice thing for journalists to be able to get people up in arms and all indignant like, but really £40K is ... hardly a huge sum anyhow, and these 'extreme' examples are exactly that, 'extreme', and certainly not the majority of cases... The new 'benifit fraud clampdown', is just like all those that have gone before anyhow, its more about projecting the immage that 'the governemnt is tackling the issue', and less to do with actually tackling the issue... All the details I've seen on the new scheme, demonstrate its unavoidible utter failure,..

"Earn" a fortune?

Earn???

I would assume that 40k also includes bills they *don't* pay such as council tax on the house, and the rent for the house.

It may also include free dinners savings, medicines not paid for, milk tokens etc.

I love the prejudice in the first post. I am also living in the lap of luxury and scrounging off the state while it supports me, my family and my business. At various times since I had the child I clearly can't afford I have been solely suported by the state. I had two years off work recently, and I could have stayed that way because I was 'earning' a good income.

And I only have one child.

I worked out at one point I was on £16k (including all the bills/expenses I would have to start paying) because I was offered a job and used that as my starting point as to what I needed to earn to be worth working.

I only have one child. So multiplying that by 12 doesn't come anywhere near the 'fortune' people are claiming £40k is.

Mina

you get a Man Up award

you recognised you situation and took steps to remedy that,

how many people do the same, in assesing their situation and decide that its just 'not worh going back to work might as well have another kid'

this is the infamous benefits trap and the problem with it is that, in order to encourage people out of it there is usually hardship involved and this usually falls to the children

the solution is to instill a sence of personal responsability into the population so they do not allow themselves to fall into the benefits trap, unfortunatly we have a generation who have grown up in the benefits trap and don't know any different

There's an old saying about cutting your cloth ...

Yes the media will highlight the extremes, that's because the extremes are news.

£40k is a *very* healthy income considering that in Scotland in 2006 the median household income was £18668 - £21892, including Tax Credits but before deductions such as income tax and NI. So I would submit that an income of double that for people whose only occupation appears to be shagging is exceptional and newsworthy.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/07/18083820/71

Mina -- "I love the prejudice in the first post."


I respectfully submit that any "prejudice" in the first post is likely that of newspaper.

I thought the first post displayed a healthy circumspect approach to an article. One that left a reader having to guess there how and where the figures came from.

<>

housing benefit, council tax, family tax credit, child tax credit

any more??

swl >> So I would submit that an income of double that for people whose only occupation appears to be shagging is exceptional and newsworthy.

Not if they are receiving only that to which they have a legal entitlement.

As has already been pointed out, until we elect a government that is willing to impose limits on the number of children people are allowed to have 40 grand isn't a great deal where the welfare of 12 children are concerned.

>>in Scotland in 2006 the median household income was £18668 - £21892, including Tax Credits but before deductions such as income tax and NI

Says something about the tax system and rates of pay.
If there is discrepancy between what it has been calculated those on benefits need as minimum to live on, and what the tax system leaves people in employment, it's a little naive to assume benefits are overly generous.

"£40k is a *very* healthy income considering that in Scotland in 2006 the median household income was £18668 - £21892, including Tax Credits but before deductions such as income tax and NI. So I would submit that an income of double that for people whose only occupation appears to be shagging is exceptional and newsworthy."

But how big is the median household? Twelve children plus two adults.... fourteen people. If we assume that the median household is two adults plus 2.4 children (4.4 people), then this family is three times bigger for twice the amount of money. Now granted they don't work for it, and the median would include people who do and who earn more. As for whether it's newsworthy.... it's only newsworthy because it fits an agenda. Divide and rule.

The original post (which I thought was posing a reasonable question) repeated the claim that the parents were happy with their income. I don't know about anyone else here, but I wouldn't want to changes places with them... not for twice the money. Twelve kids... good grief....

the people this story is aimed at are people like me

we work hard and earn our money, we pay our way and at the end of the day we have to make hard desisions because there is never enought money left for the little extras that we would like in life

then we read about 'these type of people' who have roughly the same sort of life/ level of income as us and never lift a finger to get it and the initial reaction is anger(i'm only human)

and thats what the story is trying to provoke, a reaction

Anyone who has twelve kids is not someone who has an easy life.

Ever wonder why "your" anger (and indeed any reader's anger) is being channelled towards "scroungers" on benefits, rather than rich tax dodgers who live lives of luxury and yet still won't pay their fair share?

It's not being channeled. Welfare abuse and inefficiency was ignored by the last govt because it suited them to do so. It's now being addressed. I agree that tax dodgers should be pursued, but their numbers increased under the previous govt due to the Byzantine tax system drawn up by Gordon Brown which created the loopholes which accountants and crooks exploit. For example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/01/mystery-tony-blair-finances


Simplifying the Tax Code would be the quickest way to cut tax dodging. Simplifying an incredibly complex Welfare State may help claw back some of the estimated £5bn wasted there.

<>

Surely a personal life choice?

if they were working they would have less time on their hands and be a lot more tierd so probably wouldn't have 12 kids

Some interesting figures:

£1 bn - annual cost of benefit fraud
£15 bn - annual cost of tax evasion (illegal)
£25 bn - annual cost of tax avoidance (legal, but only available to the very rich)

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/10/1-the-real-extent-of-benefit-fraud/

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/02/01/25-billion-the-cost-of-tax-avoidance/

Of course, it also depends on where they get the figures from for benifit fraud; Its natoriously the case that a huge portion of those found 'guilty' of benifit fraud weren't doing it on purpose, rather its a misunderstood question on one of teh hidiously complicated forms filled in incorrectly leading to someone recieving one benifit, rather than another, even though often the money wouldn't be any differnt; the benifit I get is entirely wrong, I've told them this but they're to dim at the DWP/JWP to understand why I'd want to be on the correct benifit... I'd actulaly be aroudn twenty quid a week better off If I could get someone at JWP to put me on to the correct benifit and twenty quid extra is a fortune wehn you have but 70 somethign pound a week in total benifit money.
Bit like with the huge attention being put on disability benifits at the moment, though the media is reposnsible here for widly over simplifying it and making out liek there is only one benifit here, when there are a multitude of differnt disability/illness related benifits ... It is a huge percentage of people accused of fraud, who win the appeal, which kinda mkes it all look like a big waste of money spending so much to take up these cases and rsearch it all, for such a small amount in actual savings... Like that whole MPs expenses rubbish that everyone seemed to go mental over; the investigation cost more than the total reclaimed back

<< Let's not forget that there aren't enough jobs to go round.
>>

Is that really true?
This is something that puzzles me. I've honestly never had a problem getting a job. They might not always have been the best job in the world, but finding one has never been a great problem. And yet you do hear of people who claim they can't find one despite months of trying. I just wonder whether in many cases they aren't turning down jobs that they are unwilling to do, and whether they wouldn't accept them if they didn't have the cushion of benefits. I say this purely because there are tons of jobs out there if you're prepared to do them (and aren't snooty about what you do I guess).