benefits - can anyone advise?

[namechangerrr]

hi i am a regulare but have name changed for this. i was wondering if anyone would e able to help me here. i have seen on the news about benfits being cut/capped but cant seem to find any exact figures.

was wondering if anyone could be able to help me and see if my benefit will be capped or cut, so that i can be prepared for this.

i recieve weekly:
£135 child tax credit
£48 cb
£65 incone support
£145 hb
£12 ctb

i no this seems like a huge amount when written like this but in reality it isnt. once i have paid gas, elec, water rates (£28 per week!), tv licence etc there is not much left for food/nappies.

i would be very grateful if anyone could help. i am not intending to be on benefit forever and i do want to better myself for myself and my children.

I'm currently on benefits. and i can see both sides of the argument though i dont obviously agree with people chosing to stay on them, i can see why they do!

I put myself through university started when my kids were 18 months and 3 and a half. so i am actively working towards my future and definitely do not plan to be on benefits any longer than i need to be.

However i do think they make it rather too easy to stay at home and not work. essentially at the moment if i worked full time i would have the same income as if i stayed on benefits, so whats the point in working hard and getting nothing back? i can see why people choose to stay on them.

fortunately i am motivated from a personal perspective to better myself and learn and set a good example for my boys that education and employment are important, so i will continue to study until i can earn a living significantly greater than being on benefits.

Sprinkle, bit weird but I have just read a letter from school saying that there is a new arrangement for financial support for children from low income families to access extra activites. The criteria is eligibility to free school meals which we don't get as I get WTC!!!!!

You didn't reply to my question, would you get help for trips abroad? You don't have to answer, of course.

i did reply lol!!

post at 21.03!

that what you referr to in school letter,isnt that the pupil premium?? mentioned few days before cuts. about 15 hours nursery for 2 yr olds and help in school (including clubs) up to uni

I have read the whole thread and not surprising see that nost people believe that their taxes pay for benefit claimants.

Please remember this is a very small percentage of your paid tax which goes to benefits. It also goes to NHS services and the armed forces etc but I dont hear anyonee complaining of that.

We all pay VAT on goods and services whether we are on benefits or not, all which gets reintroduced to the system including benefits. and for whoever complained of the smokers, stupid example when 80% of the cost is taxed and sent straight back to the government.

So please get off your high horses and see it for what it is. If the government stopped all benefit claims tomorrow do you really think you would get your taxes reduced? I think not.

Also please remember why this country is in debt. From the anks overlending for a start and debts not being repaid. They certainly dont lend to benefit claimaints do they?

wubbzy - very well said

Sprinkle apologies!

No not the pupil premium as this is secondary school. Letter says that a new arrangement has been put into place and FSM's or 'similar circs' are the criteria and to get in touch in confidence. Our income is low enough but I don't get FSM's because I work! Oh I don't understand it and as DD gets EMA (for how long no-one knows) then that should cover things. She hates school trips, they charge a bomb and she would rather go abroad with me, more fun.

This might be something to do with the scrapping of EMA for all I know. They did say they were going to replace it with 'targetted needs'. All making sense now.

witcheseve - I think the schools round here are doing something similar - I think they are calling it "new horizons", but may change name from place to place. I think it should be extended to WTC recieving families too. I think it if offering afterschool activity payments, or school holiday clubs and things like that.

...And oh my, I must apologize, I use far to many I thinks there.

Baggy don't apologise for the 'thinks' non of us know wtf is actually happening atm.

Totally agree about the WTC eligibility too, getting that means that you are working but in need. It does say (or be in similar circs). All a bit late for us now but still a good move, I think.

Well wrt people being better off on benefits than working, we have found out that it is better to work PART TIME, especially if you rent.

We took the decision to reduce DHs hours a few months back as we are better off with him working part time than full time and this is what we get WEEKLY (4 DCs)@

Wages (20 hours per week) £209
Housing Benefit £188 (leaving £7 for us to pay)
Council tax benefit £19 (leaving £3 for us to pay
Tax Credits £196
Working tax credits £13
Child benefit £60.50

Thats over £35K tax free! DH's fulltime wage was £34k.

Also get free prescriptions and dental care, discounted kids activities and leisure centre membership. DH is home 5 days a week and I am loving having him around to help out with the DCs and doing stuff with them which he could not do when he worked 50 hours a week! 3 DC are at school so we get quality time with the youngest.

We are also doing free OU degree courses so we can get better paid jobs in a few years.

Wish to bloody god we did this earlier when we were BOTH stressed out working fulltime and brought in LESS that what we get now after childcare.

We shall enjoy this until 2013 I can tell you! I don't give a monkey's what anyone thinks of us. DH is still working after all and who would'nt do it this way?

Honestly I think my head might start spinning around and blow off completely if i read any more of this.

I;m in on the campaign.

It is a simple schoolboy calculation error (not on household income, and not graduated) .

As the main breadwinner of a non contributing husband with 3 children, I have worked out that I am no better off earning over £43,000 and less than £60,000 - it is all eaten up with higher rate taxes, national insurance, loss of child benefit and childcare costs and other disincentives.

So I will be going part time to just below £43,000 where I will not get clobbered as one of the' broad shouldered rich' and spend my time exhaustedly working full time then caring for hte children to work one day a week for nothing to compensate for the w* bankers, and instead spend work to fit in with school hours and enjoy time with my children, doing the extras for them and making them feel more secure.

G.O. has created a new glass ceiling - single mums who can't afford to go for a better job and enter the ' higher rate tax payer bracket' because you are then considered to be ' rich' and are clobbered for everyting, while not having the joy of being able to spend time with your own children, which is what a lot of us would like if we were not too busy working to pay for them so that no one else has to.

Yeah, fill yea boots

and don't forget the simple law of the pendulum law

the further you swing it one way - the further it will have to go the other way before it reaches the equilibrium

for every pound you take - you will have to pay 2 on the way back to that equilibrium

idiots

ttp ..give it a rest

3xP If you are going to call us all idiots, then you could at least post without grammatical and spelling mistakes. And with punctuation.

Go wubbzy!

BitchyWitchy, i found your post at 23:16 explaining exactly WHY you find your DH working part time benefits your family in great detail

and you know what? i have no problem with you milking the system in this way -because you seem to be fully aware of how creaking, short term and rediculous such a system is - milk it for all you can until 2013

the ones i have a problem with are the ones taking home more than us whilst we both work and juggle childcare arrangements and STILL claim they're being sorely treated. i have a HUGE issue with the sense of entitlement - and i don't, for one, want "all benefit claimants" lumped into 1 category, because the posters attitude on here are so different (entitlement vs. "isn't this daft but let's milk it"). and to those people who have a problem with my own category of opinion - don't try and claim we're saying people who are genuinely disabled etc should have their benefits taken back to the breadline. it's a cheap shot - one of my mum's dearest friends has a son who was involved in an accident at work, which makes him need full time care at 25 years old - and he deserves every penny of his benefits - my own problem is with the people earning MUCH more than fulltime working folk get even before tax is taken and who still complain about their chunk of the cake

time for people to wake up and look at how the rest of the country is living, i think.

"i found your post at 23:16" meant to be "i found your post at 23:16 INTERESTING" - missed out a word there, woops.

Can someone explain to me please, how you are better off not working at all and claiming benefits? Because I don't understand it. Clearly I wasn't claiming something I should have been because we are far better off on WTC than IS/JSA/HB etc.

I get the working pt time instead of ft. But everyknows that the TC system is far too complicated and just plain silly sometimes. But how are you better off not working at all?

wubbzy1981 is anyone arguing that they want benefits to be less so that their tax is lower. That is certainly not my position.

The fact is that benefits are paid out of tax, so bottom line benefits are paid out of "tax payers money", whether that be those that pay income tax or those who pay tax on taxable goods. It is convenient, and correct, shorthand.

Additionally like it or not there is a limited pot. In an ideal world we would all like homes with a bedroom for each child, free school lunches, low cost childcare etc etc. The reality is we have to pick and choose what the "pot" gets spent on.

No one (with the possible exception of one on this thread) is arguing that children should starve, not have a home provided or be at any other significant social disadvantage by virtue of their parents income.

People do however balk at the idea of furnishing a home "nicely" or paying for holidays/meals out/trips to the pub etc when huge numbers of those who work can only dream of such luxuries.

No-one on this thread is thinking cutting benefits will reduce our taxation or that children should starve, with one exception.

It has been an interesting thread with people being honest about the benefits they receive. It's been an eye opener for me how much is available but I realise it's the cost of housing that is the main reason.

Often people are better off not working due to their circumstances. High rents and full HB will just tip it in favour of claiming full benefits. Problem is that once you are in the position of working and needing the benefits the balance of say £30 a week better off working might be outweighed by travel costs etc so it makes sense not to.

Most people who have a mortgage rather than renting will be in the situation where they have to work albeit for little more money than not because of the need to pay their own mortgage.

'Often people are better off not working due to their circumstances. High rents and full HB will just tip it in favour of claiming full benefits. Problem is that once you are in the position of working and needing the benefits the balance of say £30 a week better off working might be outweighed by travel costs etc so it makes sense not to.' - But imo, they are still not better off.

Those who are only £30 a week better off must be getting full WTC. Which means they still get free prescriptions and dental treatment and access to things like free OU. The only thing don't get is free school meals, which is taken inot account when the LP advisor does the 'better off calculation'.

Plus if their washer breaks down, or their oven blows up, they are in a position where they can go and get interest free credit for a new one. Rather than having to rely on the benefots people giving them a loan. Providing they don't already owe money to them from the time their dc all out grew their clothes all at once. Plus they are able to earn upto 3k per year extra in over time.

oh i've just remembered another 'benefit' of beng on full benefits!!

a £25 cold weather payment arrives weekly into your bank account when temps dip below freezin!! you dont apply for it......it just appears!!

got a fair few of those last year.....i think it only has to dip once to trigger the payment.

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this very obvious point has already been made several times below.

My story is as old as the hills now, but anyway, HERE IT IS: my ex husband ran away taking all our money, to a country where there is no reciprocal agreement for child maintenance. He pays not a single souz for our son and never has since going to bangland two and a half years ago.

He earns a good wage out there. He is teaching at a University as far as I know and presumably still earning a small fortune copywriting for Springer Verlag.

He is presumably traceable, though I have no inclination to 'chase' him myself.

Heir Hunters manage to find family relations in considerably more difficult circumstances.

It's scandalous that men like my husband can get away with paying nothing, thereby forcing taxpayers to support me and my son - not forgetting the two young daughters he abandoned too.

More effort should be made to prevent this from happening. It would save tax payers money and help me to give my son a better start in life.

The police at Heathrow allowed him to get on the plane

His actions nearly bloody killed me therefore I was also a drain on the NHS and social services.

It stinks that single mothers like me (and I mean in my particular position of being royally fucked over by feckless husbands..there are many hundreds of us believe me) are left in dire straits, with confused children, no money and a stigma attached to us.