£35k tax free for working 20 hours a week....

[BitchyWitchy]

In response to the 'Benefits' thread, I thought I would post this...

We took the decision to reduce DHs hours a few months back as we realised 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 before tax.

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 really continue working fulltime knowing they get all this? It may not be right but while it's on offer, should we refuse it?

Nancy66 It's one thread. It does not equal many hundreds of people doing the same.

I could post on here and say I have my genitals pierced - could you extrapolate that to mean most people do??

I can see that for some people 4 children would be a 2 person job, I am not the world's most natural mother and would struggle. For us to even cope with one I need my husband to work part time. But knowing that we got ourselvs into a situation where we could afford to pay for my husband to do that without relying on the state before we started trying for a second.

If you are mature enough to have children you should be able to plan your circumstances to meet their needs unless in an extreme unpredictable situation.

What surprises me a little is the assumption by some posters that everyone will automatically claim everything that they could possibly be entitled to claim, and that it is 100% the fault of the system that people behave like the OP. People are not robots (as another poster said in relation to another point), they are not programmed to do this. They have free will. If people need to claim benefits, they will do so and have no real choice in the matter. If people don't need benefits but can see a way in which they could claim them, they have a choice whether to take the easy road or the morally right road.

Some people will make the moral decision, some won't. But I do rather object to the assumption that people are incapable of excercising some self-control and stopping themselves from claiming benefits in a frenzied, child-in-a-sweet-shop type way.

When I finished university, I was told by another student that I was entitled to claim JSA (or whatever it was then) over the summer while I was waiting to start my postgrad course. I idly mentioned this to my grandmother who I lived with as a possible idea and she went absolutely ballistic and said that she would rather give me money herself for doing nothing than have me claim off the state. Her reasoning? "We don't need it - we can manage". As it happens, I had always worked during every holiday and part-time during term-time, and had every intention of working that holiday as well. But clearly my family held the very firm view that benefits were there for those genuinely in need and should not be claimed just because of an entitlement.

Obviously, where someone is working full-time (or to the best of their ability) and is still entitled to benefits, then they would be stupid not to claim them as this total is the maximum they can possibly earn due to their personal circumstances. But where there is a choice between earning a particular amount by working, and earning an identical amount by not working, or working full-time, I think an awful lot of people will choose to do the right thing.

I did an OU degree which was my second degree and was funded by them. I have dyslexia so I get DSA and they fund second degrees for those on DSA.

It's not true that OU degrees aren't highly regarded - I wasn't short of interviews when I graduated. Many employers told me that they had more respect for my OU degree because it demanded more motivation and time management skills than doing a standard one full-time.

I have an Oxbridge degree and an OU degree, I know which one opens doors and it isn't the OU one. People admire me for doing the OU degree and it is better than nothing but I am not sure it competes.

It depends on the ages of the children, quads for example i think we'd all agree need 2 people, i also know somebody who had 2 sets of twins 12 months apart the loony, they were planned too !

OU degree's are seen as better than nothing but the question is always asked why you didn't go to a University the first time around, if you have a good answer fair enough but not wanting the debt or not having planned to ever go and then doing it because it's free i don't know if that's a good enough answer.

My first degree was from Cambridge but my OU degree was more useful to me in my current career as it was more vocational.

blimey tide has turned here a bit - so is my OU degree that I've started a pointless exercise or not?

and ok - I only have 3 children but I don't think that 4 would be a 2 person job.

My friends each manage their 5 under 5s on their own 2 or 3 days a week, and have done since the children were 1 and 3 (they're twins and trips).

Kungfupanda/vespasian - The whole narrative of benefits over the last two decades has been that benefits ARE something you are entitled to, and that there is no shame in claiming in it. This was one of the purposes of CTC/WTC. So most people WILL claim everything they are entitled too. Because they are entitled to. People how don't show the same rare moral fortitude that those who voluntarily pay more tax do.

There have been government FUNDED campaigns to get those who are reluctant to take up benefits (mainly pensioners) to claim all they are entitled to.

If you re-read what I have said, you will see that I am referring to people who have a choice to claim or to work, not to people who need benefits to top up a low income, despite working to the best of their ability.

The OP is in this situation and a few people seem to be saying that this is just sensible and normal and suggesting that anyone with any sense would do the same. It is this idea that I object to - plenty of people are at this income level and choose to support themselves.

Even my mum and dad, who are loaded, having worked hard all their lives - are very proud of their free bus passes. Their argument when tackled was that they deserved it - but then they were the first generation to really buy into the Thatcher greed is good.

Entitlement is rampant throughout our society, it makes me very sad

I don't care what the OP does to be honest, but it is sad that she doesn't understand what kungfu is talking about. What do they say if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

My youngest son often says to me "but he hit me first" when I tell him off for hitting someone. Sorry OP but your arguments are those of a toddler

But if the state allows them to they can. What the state should do is change the rules so it's more painful to make those choices.

Kungfupanda - They are making a decision based on their circumstances that they are better off working less and taking more from the state in order to have more time now rather than working more in the hope of making more money in the future.

Xenia - what about some personal responsibility and conscience?

The welfare system is there to help people who have reduced means through no fault of their own - not to finance lazy/greedy lifestyle choices.

and then we could round (once again) to the question of how do you make it more painful for those that choose to live off the state while ensuring that those who are using it in a way that it was intended to be used aren't penalised?

But it we ask the state to be the guardian of our morals and as kungfupanda says take away our "freewill" to make decisions based on what we feel is fair and right then that is very sad.

I agree with Xenia, the OP has made a perfectly sensible choice. But the govt would be better to get on with closing tax avoidance loopholes - very much the same sort of issue - before going after this sort of small beer.

Nancy66 - The welfare system is there to do what the welfare system encourages people to do. If you say you want a system to do X and you set up a system that does Y, you should not be surprised when you get Y.

MaMoTTaT - Ah there is the question. First you need consensus on what the welfare system is for. That's almost as difficult to get as for criminal justice.

I agree the system is at fault, it's just dispriting to see such open, gleeful missuse.

I wish people would remember there are some countries where there is no safety net at all - if you're poor you starve.

"I wish people would remember there are some countries where there is no safety net at all - if you're poor you starve."

and they have scroungers too - they just scrounge off other people.

Not sure what the point is of that - we're not discussing the economy of Kenya are we???

i think the OP may be being overpaid on some benefits -

Council tax benefit (which isn't cash in your pocket anyway) for instance - do they have an up to date statemnt of your current WTC/CTC status? if not, you may find more than that is due. looks wrong to me - i have comparable earned income, 3DCs and still pay the majority of our council tax.

Housing Benefit also seems steep but that depends on your area (impossible to sy for either benefit, as neither has online calculatirs available)

I hope i'm wrong and you aren't being overpaid, because otherwise you may find youself in a sticky sitution.

I have to say i do not believe the OPs situation is typical - we would be vastly better off is my DH was in full time work. We'd even be a bit better off if i was.