Government says problem families 'have too many children'

[MrSmith]

JSA is not the same, have you been reading my above posts at all?

 

People get more for claiming separately as is, now, and do claim separately as is, now.

They don't have to have children to claim separately either, there are people that do it regardless.

And they do it for the financial gain.

It's such a big problem that the government have set up a freephone number for benefit fraud.

 

So what can they each claim? HB, CTB, JSA, what else because if that’s it they are better off together in one house.

 

Even if we use the figures you posted it still wouldn't make them better off because they would each have bills to pay, running two houses costs much more than running one house.

[JackLakeland]

Ah- thanks for the explanation. That idea does have some merit (but perhaps day for one pregnancy in case of twins?)

Presumably you would pay for any children already in existence prior to the initial claim?

 

Twins are okay. If you've worked for a period and have 10 kids then loose your job you can claim for them all. But if you decided you wanted more, you could only claim for one more...

[Digsy]

So what can they each claim? HB, CTB, JSA, what else because if that’s it they are better off together in one house.

 

Even if we use the figures you posted it still wouldn't make them better off because they would each have bills to pay, running two houses costs much more than running one house.

 

I give up, it simply won't sink in will it, regardless of the fact that I had to spell it out and do the math for you.

They don't run a 2nd household, they just sit on the 2nd house, or use it to grow drugs and the like, the only bill they have to pay on it is the water bill.

The gas/elec don't get used on the 2nd house because nobody lives in it.

 

2 examples I can give here that I know about recently.

 

1 man uses one place to grow drugs, girlfriend and child live in the flat above, they claim separately.

 

Another couple have been claiming separately for years, both houses purchased by one of their parents and rented to both of them separately.

Despite the fact they've both been fraudulently claiming for years, the mortgages on both houses they are set to inherit is paid for by the LHA rates.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Digsy

[MrSmith]

I give up, it simply won't sink in will it, regardless of the fact that I had to spell it out and do the math for you.

They don't run a 2nd household, they just sit on the 2nd house, or use it to grow drugs and the like, the only bill they have to pay on it is the water bill.

The gas/elec don't get used on the 2nd house because nobody lives in it.

 

Right, why didn't you just say they could still illegally claim money that they aren't entitled to? Which is something that needs clamping down on severely.

 

So what extra money will they get, the same amount of JSA, the same help with their children, money to pay the rent for the house they aren’t living in and no council tax to pay. Other than illegally subletting the other house out how are they better off. Isn't there a standing charge for gas and electricity? And how long would they get away with committing fraud.

[MrSmith]

Another couple have been claiming separately for years, both houses purchased by one of their parents and rented to both of them separately.

Despite the fact they've both been fraudulently claiming for years, the mortgages on both houses they are set to inherit is paid for by the LHA rates.

 

I didn't think you could claim benefits for renting a house off a relative and have you reported them for committing fraud?

 

But they are both good reasons to cut benefits.

[Digsy]

Right, why didn't you just say they could still illegally claim money that they aren't entitled to? Which is something that needs clamping down on severely.

 

So what extra money will they get, the same amount of JSA, the same help with their children, money to pay the rent for the house they aren’t living in and no council tax to pay. Other than illegally subletting the other house out how are they better off. Isn't there a standing charge for gas and electricity? And how long would they get away with committing fraud.

 

It is hard to prove any fraud is taking place, but it doesn't have to be fraud.

They can legally stay with their family for 3 nights of the week, and can use it daily for meals, washing and the like.

All they have to do to make it legal is stay somewhere else, anywhere, doesn't have to be in 2nd house for 4 nights.

They could leave the house at 11pm and come back in the morning.

[MrSmith]

It is hard to prove any fraud is taking place, but it doesn't have to be fraud.

They can legally stay with their family for 3 nights of the week, and can use it daily for meals, washing and the like.

All they have to do to make it legal is stay somewhere else, anywhere, doesn't have to be in 2nd house for 4 nights.

They could leave the house at 11pm and come back in the morning.

Seams a lot of effort for a couple of extra quid, but I'm pretty confidant the police could prove they are growing drugs. And I know the council are very keen of HB and CTB cheats and will put a lot of effort into prosecuting them, all they need is a nod from someone to get them looking.

[Digsy]

You'd be surprised the lengths people will go to for a few extra quid.

 

Back onto topic though, I think a reform should start with clamping down on the tax loopholes that allows £13tn to go un-taxed, invest in catching the fraudsters and build an estate specifically for the 120,000 problem families.

Set up gun turrets around it, allow the airforce to use it as target practice and jobs a good un.

 

I mean it's a witch hunt after all.

[Anna B]

My father was born in 1900, the youngest of 10 children, all of whom survived to a good age. As a family we seemed to own the whole of Brightside, though none of us were rich. My mother was the second of six children, left at 16 to help her older sister take care of the others, while her widowed father fought on the Somme for 4 years, and came home so shell shocked that he spent the rest of his life in Middlewood Hospital. I was the youngest of 2 children, but spent most of my time with my mother's younger sister's family of eight. They were poor enough to have empty jam jars for tea cups till the boys grew up and brought in enough money to make the family better off. In the end the whole family was very successful, the youngest daughter Hazel became a Professor of Biology at Edinburgh University with tenure till she retired. I can honestly not believe that anyone on SF would willingly wish to restrict the right to have as many kids as you can reasonably afford. It takes sacrifice, maybe having to give up the cigs, if you are still daft enough to smoke em, or the booze. But a big happy family is a gift.

 

This is a big family, but not a problem family. Which proves it's not how many children you have, but how you bring them up.

[chem1st]

Some families claim more in benefits when working, than they do when unemployed.

 

It is cheaper to keep them on the dole. And it makes more sense for somebody else to work, who would be better off for working and actually pay something in (instead of collecting more).

 

Child benefits and tax credits (also a benefit) often exceed the benefits for an adult. (in particular families with just one or two children)

 

Larger families actually have a lower cost per person in benefits. (Mainly because the cost of housing and housing benefit is massive and as this is shared amongst the people in the house the total is brought down a lot.)

 

In the UK the birth rate has fallen by a lot. It has been below replacement level for 41 years now! The problem is why aren't we having children? Why do we need to import workers? It is because the cost of living is too high, in particular housing.