Report comment

The £70,000 benefits equivalent was reported by the Daily Mail as being actually a little more than half that. Minkin's point was that because of tax she would have to earn far more to have the equivalent in her pocket. It is an extraordinary sum, but even the Daily Mail story suggests much of it is irreducible (e.g. £16,800 p.a. rent). However, there are some oddities apparent, one of which is Minkin's wish that her children should not have to take out student loans to go to university, as she does not want them to start their working lives in debt. I thought those things were called grants, and had been abolished?

The other oddity is that Minkin keeps and maintains two large looking pedigree dogs, which can't be cheap. Other aspects, like the car and the 42" TV, could be survivors from her married days; and perhaps the house is too big and expensive, but that isn't a Minchin specific point but a difficult one generally. Obviously it would be cheaper for the state if all those on benefits lived somewhere incredibly cheap to rent, but I don't see even Osborne advocating ghettoization.