£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?

Kungfu, it's very easy to moralise about what other folk do, when it's not really a position you've ever faced.

Can you honestly say you'd rather work full time, for less cash in your pocket,

I've already said, back in the 80's my Dad lost his job in the ship building industry. Despite the fact that my Mother worked full time, we were actually better off with her giving up her reasonably paid job, until my Dad could find work.

My Mother loved her job, but I'm pleased to say that her 'pride' came second to filling her children's bellies. We still lived like paupers, but a few quid a week can make all the difference, it certainly did back then.

Yes, I can honestly say that if I was in the OP's situation, I would continue to work full time rather than saying "oh well, I am entitled to have other people support me."

Is that really so hard to believe?

I should add that one major reason I would make that decision is that I am well aware that there are people, some of them on this thread, who need the assistance that the benefits system can offer, and for them to continue to receive it, as many people as possible need to take a little bit of personal responsibility and think beyond their own wishes.

Thank you, Imarriedafrog - I knew I wasn't imagining all the people who would do the right thing.

What sort of place does the OP live in? She said they made this decision as someone else told them about it. They obviously have pretty intellectual discussions in her part of the world.

Well I wouldn't. I'm not sure I could look my kids in the eye each day, when I knew at the end of each week my bus fare to work was taking food out of my children's mouths.

Both of my parents returned to working full time once my Dad found work. A shitty job, for a pittance of pay for my Dad, but it made it possible for my Mam to work to and we were a little better off because of it.

Kungfupanda - No it's not hard to believe. Your priorities are different.

MaMoTTaT - it depends what you want to do with the degree I guess.
In your shoes it certainly won't hurt to do it but I wouldn't turn down any job or opportunity because of it, if that makes sense.

The point is there is no such thing as a free lunch, our baby boomer parents are screwing over their grandchildren, whether they like to think about it or not, mine certainly couldn't care less.
The OP is all very smug now but what will she do if her daughter ends up a single mum and as a result of the OP taking the piss the ladder is pulled up and there's no welfare state for her daughter in genuine need.

I don't know about my priorities, but my morals are certainly different to those of the OP.

mama - I'm not going to have finished it for another 4 or 5 years - so I'll be going back to work before I finish it anyhow (

I'm hoping it'll help towards finding a job in social care (NOT a social worker ) in the future - often starting roles require "an NVQ2 or 3". And I know last years course counted in the same way as an NVQ2

I should have gone to University when I was 19 - I had a place (at Edinburgh as well) but took a year out and realised that actually I had no interest in my chosen subject(s) and that the chances of me dropping out were high.

So I did the family route. thinking I'd do a degree as a mature student once they were older once I'd figured out what I did actually want to do. At that point I had no idea about the OU or that I'd be able get funding for an OU degree.

Have to admit to feeling a little pity for the op. It's not a life I would choose for myself. I firmly believe that if you are able to then you should work to provide for your family rather than living off the state. What a sad set of morals to pass to your children - far worse imo than having left them to go to work to provide for them. Each to their own and all that. At least my kids know you have to work in life unless in genuine need.

If it was me I'd go to University myself, forget about the debt on the basis that you'll get so much support and help along the way (and please don't take this the wrong way) but if you've suffered with depression you'll get motivation, a social life, peer learning, what's not to like ?

I rather suspect rainbowinthesky - they won't tell the children where the money is coming from, so the children will just think pennies fall from the sky - until they are much much older and can't afford to work part time, raise a family and have luxuries then the parents will either have to lie or confess what they did and leave themselves open to the judgement of children probably either paying 50% tax to pay for the OP's actions or are doing the same themselves.

think I'll take my chances on my OU degree that I'll get while working in "a" job (who knows what that will be) rather than the my local "University" - course - which doesn't even appear to cover some of the areas I'm interested in.

Even if I never get a job using it at least then I'll have studied something that interests me and I'm passionate about

I have a dilemma that is quite like the OP's. I wonder if all of you excellent moralists can help.

I am going on maternity leave from my part-time job in April. I will receive Maternity Allowance as I haven't been there long enough for Maternity Pay. I was planning to return after 5 months, but have discovered that once you take childcare costs into account we will be £100 a month worse off when I go back to work than when I'm not working and receiving Maternity Allowance. So now I'm thinking I should take the whole 39 weeks (9 months) off.

Who is to blame?

(a) Me for thinking of scrounging an extra 4 months of benefits at the taxpayer's expense

(b) The government for paying the profligate sum of £500 Maternity Allowance per month

(c) My employers for paying such low wages

(d) None/all of the above

I have thought pong and hard about posting on this but OP you make me feel very sick. DH and I work 5 jobs between us 4 of which are secure but sadly we still claim benefits. As soon as DS is out of nursery then as won't claim we will still mange to spend time with the DCs but will get them to leaatn from an early age that morally go have to get off your backside to eRn what you want. You stink.

Blame assumes that you would be wrong to do so in some sense. That is far from established.

Well that's what I'm asking, Coalition

may be your career choice in your teens which led you to earn not very much more than the maternity allowanec or your husband for making you work part time and not full time so that there is so little difference?

...Kerrist.

I just found my local council benefits calculator. I take it back op - looks about right housing benefit/ council tax relief wise.

sheesh. still glad we own the house though, will be much better for us in the long run.

the daft thing is, it really is possible to manage without HB, and as I am in the 16-24 hour bracket, we may lose a further £150 pcm, and i think with some further nip and tuck we could still manage. (or i get work to give me a few more hours, either way..)

Although this make me really pd off with the people who go on about losing child benefit from a 44kpa salary being 'unfair'. Life's not fair.

meh.

Ha ha, I forgot to put the Xenia option (e) in. What on earth would make you think that my husband wants me to work part time? Or that this is my first career for that matter. He'd love the cash, but I am afraid I am one of those disgraceful women with an irrational desire to pick their children up from school at 3.30 most days.

How is this any different from Tax avoidance (legal)? Why is maximising your benefit less socially acceptable than paying as little tax as you can.

Good question, DrJones. I think the answer probably has something to do with the Daily Mail.