To be shocked at how much we would get in tax credits if I did not work

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

I sense this thread might go wrong - I do not mean it to. I am not saying people should not receive the money, nor that they should be forced into work. I am just shocked at how much we would get!

Bit of background. My job is at risk so looking at worst case I wanted to see what we would be entitled to if I was made redundant. I expected it to be very very little.

I put our details into the tax credits website and based on me staying at home with the DC's and DH continuing to work full time we would get £600 a month . That is not considering any other benefits which we might be entitled to (DH earns around 18k)

Ok so that is not a huge amount of money to live on but after childcare costs that is more than I have left over after working full time in a well paid job!

I fully admit I enjoy my job and working. I also get more out of it than salary - pension, fulfillment, career advancement. Also, childcare costs are a relatively short term thing - in four years once all DC are in school they will come down considerably (they are very high at £1400 a month now).

I have no intention of leaving my job but it does make me wonder why I am missing my DC's, running round like a mad fool organising childcare and picks ups and am absolutely exhausted and dont have much time for myself when I am in the short term worse off financially.

It is nice to know there is the safety net though I guess although I now understand why some people make it a choice not to work (and I mean some not everyone who doesnt work, stays at home etc). I genuinely never expected it to be that much. I guess it will also be at risk with the current government.

"you couldn't do that btw - childcare element is paid direct to child care providers and you need evidence."

No its not - its straight into my account. They say they check with the caregiver but would they really regularly ring every caregiver for everyone who claims?

And they dont check it against your hours - they cant really. You might work 15 hours a week.

This could be 2 days a week (and therefore 2 days of childcare)

Or it could be 5 days a week from 11 -2 (and therefore 5 days of childcare).

But what many of us were suggesting earlier in the thread would go a long way towards achieving the parity you talk of, swallowedafly.
If parenting were regarded as the key issue, rather than whether the couple remain together or not, then actually the assumption WOULDN'T be that the single parent needs to be treated totally differently. The assumption would be, ok , these two parents have chosen to not stay as a couple, but they haven't divorced their children ! They remain two able bodied adults capable of earning a living and being responsible for their children. I think the root of the issue with single parents is that society has got it badly wrong in letting any parent feel that they can walk away from their responsibility

well, i was pretty suprised that life has not been as hard a it might have been on CTC/WTC after DH was made redunadant...

though there are many ways in which that was possible -

• my work costs next to nothing to go to (cyclable)

• our house is fairly cheap to run

• we are all in good health (the costs incured by a single very ill family member = can be appalling)

• nothing has broken (boiler, car etc..)

from lots of Mumset posts i see that people (the 'poor us on 40k brigade') regard our mortgage as high, but i think it is manageable, and not more than the rent would be.

Obv if only one parent is working childcare = less of an issue but i have my mum to help as well (so when DH has had interviews it hasnt cost extra).
Going into mat leave things may get tougher though.

and we weren't carying any other notable debt - so many households do.

the taper for taking on additional paid work will change - with tax threshold at about 6k - every pound over that mark i lose 66 p on (tax Ni & 33% WTC Taper) - if it were ten K then it would be a bit more reasonable.

If dp packed his job in we would be a 100.00 a week better off .

My husband is disabled, i have depression and we have one child. My husband works full time and i stay home. My child is still breastfeed and i do all the cleaning and childcare as husband can not phyicaly (sp?) do it.

The extra CTC and WTC helps us to beable to do this. I will return to work once my child is in school.

I chose to have a child and to raise the child why should the govrenment want me to go to work and not stay at home and rase the child i chose to have?

Why chose to have children if you want to work and give the child to someone else to rase eg childcare?

I have worked and paid taxs, i have a degree and i could get a better paying job than DH as he does not have degree but then he cant look after our child. i dont feel bad taking TC as my child will be paying them when he is an adult and i will pay then when i return to work.

If childcare was free like school then i might go back to work when my child was 2 but as its not then i will wait til he is in school.

Swallowed I acn udnerstand that although trust me, as a carer it feels pretty much the smae sometimes! In the effort to make work pay, those of us who can;t for genuine reasons get less and less compassion and left under same catch-all criteria as rhose lazy sodsa whose arses I eould (metaphorically) like to kick as much as anyone

'why should the govrenment want me to go to work and not stay at home and rase the child i chose to have?

you pay taxes

those employed to look after your child pay taxes

Don'y think it's ideological, it's about revenue

I just want people to see that there is value in rasing your own young children.

I feel bad for not working but my circumstance is that i cant right now. I hate the opioin that if your a stay at home mum and take TC then you are a lazy sod. Its so not true. This money helps lots of families and thats a good thing.

I agree that divorced couples should still be treated as co parents (with the usual exemptions wrt dv etc) but then there still needs to be recognition within that of the team nature that being a couple can have

Most of may family work shifts that go 6 - 2, 2 - 10, 10 - 6 on a weekly rotational basis: now, when dh worked 8 - 5 I simply got an evening job. It's not so easy to work around a rotational shuft apttern becuase nothing works more than one week in 3!

Now, luckily Mum can help and covers the hours neeeded to allow for dual working in thsoe households but really, that's an exception that no system can assume to be in place.

So if one divorcedc parent is working shifts and the other covering childcare it should be coverd for in exactly the same way as now surely?

Up until school age anyway. And there should be a real push to make more school hours only jobs available.

'Why chose to have children if you want to work and give the child to someone else to rase eg childcare?'

Oh please - do not even go down this route (although took 7 pages for this line to emerge ).

As far as I was aware children are still there once they go to school - or will you be home schooling and them living with you forever?

The government cares about money. Why give someone money to not work? I am not criticising your choice to stay home in the slightest by the way.

LOL at rap- don't give our local council ideas

Our previous Head was presented with a team willing to set up after school provision at her school, and she replied that she didn;t wasnt it it would encourage THOSE sorts of parents (knowing her, I assume she meant where the family asn't so affluent that a mother simply stayed home watching staff clean- common around these parts).

It's a state school btw.

That shouldn't be allowed. State schools that are able to offer support to working aprents should not be able to say no when faced with the opportunity.

And I know I always say it but I would work if there was SN after school care. A great many aprents arew out fo work against their wishes and that's a whole untapped market.

Wantofly- no one said parents are lazy , we're simply saying that as far as the govt is concerned, why should you expect to be funded to stay at home? Plenty of parents work- the majority in fact. Also, people have individual preferences about when they want to return to work. You say you intend to try to find employment when your child starts school, but what about those who decide they want to be at home til their kids go to secondary school? Or even until they're 16? At the end of the day people should expect to support themselves for the lifestyle they want, whether it's no kids, one kid or six. If you want to stay home then fine, but that's a choice. Not something that anyone else should pay for and besides, the country has run out of money so won't be able to pay anyone much soon

The gov should pay me as its cheaper for me to look after my son than it is to put him in childcare! If i worked i could get up to 80% of childcare paid for as DH earns so little that would work out more than if i stay home and look after him.

i think state run childcare centres are the way to go.

I dont think that tax payer should pay for my chose but then i have paid taxes and i'm glad its there for me to use.

I think the way benefits work are unfair to some people but thats the risk with making it fair to most people.

The moeny is there when you need it otherwise we might as well all live in private state like america where if you have no insurance you dont get treated and people die or you can only clain job seeker allowance for 5 years of your life then your homeless.

I am sorry about the "why have children if your going to go to work" comment.

Im not having a go at any one. I think its good to show children that everyone works but i also think its good for small children to have their mum or dad around them.

If i had a career then i might have gone back to work.

But with childcare cost it just does not make sence to go back right now even if i were not ill.

Its all individual choise.

They look a bit longer term I think

ATM my sister is a nursery nurse; becuase she is apid to care for toehrs kids 9well, she manages the unit actually so she si well paid) her Dh and her are lifeted out of the TC brakcet, and pay tax on top

if one loses work the otehr will still mean tehy don't need HB etc

Normally her ds would go to soemone who is alsoc ared for (except Mum does it becuase rather ironically sister doesn't belive in institutionalised childcare) and they would be in similar circs

It's a continuum that saves money, and they also relaise that those who stay in work are more likely to work in the long terma nd earn better money

So that 80% childcare costs is an investment to the state.

Sorry i havent read all the thread, but i calculated our tax credits on the website and it was wrong, when the application actually went through it was a different amount.

Our annual income is £17k and we get £52 a week CTC and would get about double that a week if we had a baby though it would lower after the first year. Just wondering how many children you have to qualify for £600 a month?!