To think people who CHOOSE to be SAHPs should not claim income related benefits

(277 Posts)
DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:17:25

I wholeheartedly support benefits for SAHPs and believe they should be able to live adequately without working if they can't work. When I say can't work I mean when one of their children is SEN, they'd have less money after childcare than they would claiming benefits, they are disabled etc.

What really annoys me is the following situation:

Husband earns 35k, wife earns 25k, they have a baby and wife decides to stay at home and therefore is able to claim 5k in tax credits.

They are just example figures as I don't know how much tax credits realistically are.

IMO if you choose to be a SAHP then you foot the bill.

I will repeat I have no issue with those who need to as they'd be worse off working. Do have an issue with those who'd be "slightly better off" working, don't and still claim. AIBU?

FantasticDay Fri 29-Nov-13 12:32:21

The cut off point for tax credits is a household income of 26K. Your friend may well be better off as a SAHM, but that's because she wouldn't be paying fir childcare and commuting - Not because she's getting tax credits.

Pointeshoes Fri 29-Nov-13 12:32:59

Your view seems pretty black and white. What if like me, tax credits were the only way to put food on the table as I'm in full time uni. Wouldn't be able to study without them. Therefore wouldn't be earning a decent wage in the near future.

You do realise tax credits basically props up income because minimum wage is so low?

gamerchick Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:11

But its none of your business.

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:19

But then again I'm in the "don't have children you can't afford" camp.

Yeah, because people never lose their jobs and childcare/living costs never rise, ever. hmm

TarkaTheOtter Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:27

I don't think the govt is providing financial incentives to be sahp. If I were a childminder I would receive govt funding (through) the parents' tax credits to look after children. Because I look after my own children instead of other peoples there is no govt subsidy.
We manage fine without but it annoys me that childcare seems to only be respected in an economic sense when it is other peoples children that you are looking after.
I've often wondered if I would be better off if I registered as a childminder to look after my neighbour's children and she did the same for mine.

Hullygully Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:43

What ARE you talking about OP?

You know what pisses me off?

I would like to go to the moon but I don't have a rocket and maybe my neighbour does. Or not.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:45

I didn't actually realise that they took partners income into account and the threshold was so low blush. Feel like a bit of a dick now as if household income is under 25k obviously they won't be better off in work! I'm assuming people in these circumstances can't claim income support?

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:34:48

Oh and also, by your logic, nobody on minimum wage should ever have children. Minimum wage alone is barely enough to support a single person living alone, let alone a family with children.

Your argument should be "minimum wage needs to be higher", not "get rid of tax credits to support families with a working parent".

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:35:14

I've heard it mentioned on mumsnet about people losing TCs when they hit 40k - hence the start of the thread!

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:36:16

living I'm a massive advocate of minimum wage increase! But I don't think that alone would solve it.

FantasticDay Fri 29-Nov-13 12:38:32

Hi. No they couldn't claim income support either. Im in phone so can't link but the hmrc /Gov.UK website is surprisingly helpful. (Btw, not surprisingly you were misled - the papers often make out that the benefits system us far more generous than it actually is).

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:38:41

Why not? I'm confused by your argument. If one person earns enough money to support a SAHP and children, why should the other partner go out to work if they don't need or want to?

If minimum wage was higher, we wouldn't need tax credits and child benefits. People could work full-time and earn enough to support their family without the need for government top-ups.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:38:54

point well obviously you fall into the can't work bracket since you're at Uni!

What's it to do with me? I vote and pay tax therefore I am well within my rights to have an opinion on the matter, as is every single other person in the country!

Are you getting mixed up with child benefit? At one point 40k was going to be the cut-off but the it got bumped to 50k. That was for a sole earner not joint income so your friend's circumstances don't apply here.

Pointeshoes Fri 29-Nov-13 12:40:18

Well you seem to of learnt a lesson here.
Do a bit of research first before you make a story up. Clap clap.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:41:08

living they shouldn't go to work, but they shouldn't claim benefits either!

YY to your point about minimum wage, but SAHPs wouldn't earn minimum wage so may not solve the problem?

FantasticDay Fri 29-Nov-13 12:41:17

I think you might be confusing tcs with child benefit?

NoComet Fri 29-Nov-13 12:41:20

Sorry, but I am old fashioned I believe every DC has the right, at least until the end if primary school to have one parent at home.

I brought my DCs into the world I want to care for them.

I don't have a well paid, child care covering job to walk into, I don't have granny round the corner for holidays and illness, when both DDs got CP I'd probably have been sacked.

Once the DDs were to old for our lovely local nursery, there was nothing, but over subscribed CMs and very very limited holiday care. Most likely DH would have to take leave, I would have to take leave and we'd get zero time together.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

In fact we are incredibly lucky DH earns over the threshold for even CB (just) so we have never been able to claim diddly squit.

But if a bit of his insane tax bill is subsidising another family to be able to spend time together, not working every hour to cover child care or is allowing a child like DD1 who needs space not to be stuck in an after school/holiday club they hate. Then good, they are welcome!

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:42:09

So what about the thread in here were the poster is going to be on 40k and people are advising her to check if she can get tax credit? It's things like that that have lead me to believe the threshold for claiming is high!

fifi669 Fri 29-Nov-13 12:42:31

Personally I don't think anyone should be a SAHM unless they can afford to be independently, have children with special needs or will actually be worse off if they were employed.

Staying at home is a choice, not a right.

Bluecarrot Fri 29-Nov-13 12:43:59

If I went back to the same job I had before, we would be worse off than if I stayed at home. Not taking into account the added non-monetary benefits of being at home with my dc, the availability of someone to care for a sick child etc.

But I guess you could argue that I could find a better paid job, which would take us out of the tax credits threshold.

My kids are only little for a short time. I plan to be here for them. I will hopefully restart my career once they are older, abd the taxes I pay will support the next generation in the same situation as I am in now.

Pointeshoes Fri 29-Nov-13 12:44:04

No , I could work on top of uni. But I choose not too. I'm a SAHP and at uni.

Chunderella Fri 29-Nov-13 12:45:41

On phone so can't link, but in OPs scenario with a 35k earner, they could claim 1685 child tax credits annually only if 3 DC. Sod all if 1 or 2. There is no scenario in which someone on 35k would be entitled to 5k in child tax credits alone. They might, however, be entitled to a lot in the working tax credit element that pays for childcare, if it were needed. Which it isn't with a SAHP. You cannot always assume that more parental hours worked means less cost to the state. Doesn't always work that way.

So yes, yabu. Not only on principle but because the premise of your argument is wrong. I'm a WOHP for the record...

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:47:32

Absolutely being a SAHM is a choice, but there's a huge proportion of people who are worse off if they work. DP and I both earn minimum wage. I work part-time (between 20-30 hours) and DP is full-time. When I get pregnant, I won't be going back to work after maternity leave. We don't have family nearby. The amount we spent on childcare would be more than I bring in a month, so why bother? We'd be worse off and I wouldn't be able to see my DC as much as I'd like.

We'll be able to claim tax credits and child benefit. Which, y'know, will benefit our child. Ideally, minimum wage would mean DP could work full-time and I could stay home without claiming extras, but until minimum wage increases, that's not going to happen for a huge number of families.

expatinscotland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:48:21

You start a thread from a point of complete ignorance about tax credits, income support and everything else and expect it to be in Any way reasonable?

Income support is a means tested benefit for lone parents of children under 5, for starters.

Do some research before spouting off half-cocked complete nonsense.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now