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.

Lol at swallowedAfly's post "3".

The fact is, that there was a thread a few months ago, where I spent many a laborious minute plugging scenarios into entitledto.com under my previous posting name. The net result is, that should I decide to go back to work once DD1 is in Special school, aside from any practical issues, such as hospital appointments, etc., we would receive more in benefits than if I don't work at all. So it is actually much, much cheaper for the govt. for me to stay at home looking after DDs 1, 2, & 3.

"Why give someone money to not work?"

It's not that I think people should be given money not to work, I just think the government paying for me to go to work is crazy, especially when I'd far rather be at home. Not to mention the fact that in reality the government is propping up low paid jobs with tax credits. If you're going to have a minimum wage, it should be set at a level where people can live on it. Employers can get away with paying too little because they know their employees will get their wages topped up by the state.

Lougle, I think wrt to you and I (and other carers) it is deliberate- if benefits were lwoer and childcare still as unavailable then many would look at foster care; last figures I had for a cre apckage and resi care for a disabled child equalled close to £2k a week in total- we are so much cheaper and frankly they want us doing this. Was whole point of care in community lark after all.

I think for teh rest of it- sahm etc- it all depends on what you want the state to have as it's role really

With what we currenlty pay in taxes then emergency is about it

On my secret planet, everyone will ahve an option after ten years NI has accrused in their name (doesn't have to be continuous, people get ill etc) to take a funded mayternity break at whatever rate carers get, but in order to get it they will agree to payan extra % of NI afterwards to cover it- split between each parent, regardless of whether they are together. If one aprent fails to return to work, the other accrues the debt when their portion is paid, although it can be delayed / voided by carer / sickness / etc.

A bit like the idea trhey are suggesting for student loans, really.

If the minum wage was higher for companies that make a profit per year of more than £1million - and they had to pay a wage higher than £10.50 (whilst the national average is £12 per hour) then the goveremtn wouldn't have to subsidize these companies as the wages would be a fair wage for a fair job.

As it is though companies such as sainsbury pay the minum wage for night shift with no allowence - go look and see how much profit sainsbury, tesco and wallmart made last year.... then think about how they can make so much profit when the staff can be subsidised by the goverment if they have children and are on a low wage.

Possibly hotel chains and other large comapnies know that they don't have to pay a living wage as toguh shit and someone else will help you out.

Tesco actually pay quite a lot more than minimum wage

Well my dd works there and earns more an hour than that.. .she also gets shares in the company every year ..but anyway I agree that big companies pay shite wages ..I work for the local council and my wages are shite

"I work for the local council and my wages are shite"

Oh I bet they are not

Mama it varies

I used to be on an LA equivalent wage scale and yes,, it was good.

But if you are a carer or a dinner aldy then you are both council employed and likely to be on a minimum wage.

but your local council isn't likely to make £1 million in profit, as a none profit organisation it would be hard though there is vast wastage with counicls and I don't see why we need to have councty councils for every county - why not have three counties and one council for the three? Would save thousands if you got ride of two thirds of the work force in the councils.

yes they would be larger councils areas - but there would be benifits - not sure appart form hugh savings on wages though what they would be.

I work in a cafe in a college .I can assure you they are ,so shove your

If your customer service skills are that good usualsuspect then you deserve a pittance don't you ?
But some how I rather think working for the council must be more advantageous than working for a private cafe or else you wouldn't do it would you ?

Surely mama people (as we expect) think oh I need a job, look fro a job and apply for them regardless of state or private ownership?

I mean, I know nothing of the individual circs in this case but would you want people turning down work because it was public sector?

These days you're lucky if a job comes up at all, you don't play gfames with being picky about whom the employer is (within reason anyway)