Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

775 replies

BitchyWitchy · 22/10/2010 23:42

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?

OP posts:
Tootlesmummy · 25/10/2010 20:55

Wayoftheworld, many people out there would have been delighted to have been in a full time job earning what OP's husband was earning. Sorry she could have worded it any way she likes but at the end of the day her and DH have been greedy and lazy. This is not a case of support in hard times, it's support in lazy times which is completely wrong.

Op will never go back to work unless the cash cow is stopped.

mw27pink · 25/10/2010 21:10

It is not the OP that is draining the resorces of the system. It is the people who nerver seek employment, where there are generations of people living in the same house without working for a single day in their lives.

OP has been working and IS CURRENTLY STUDING, which while is not payed work is a building block for future. She is living under no other ilusion that she will go back to work at some point and pay back taxes.

THIS IS NOT THE ATTITUDE OF PEOPLE WHO DRAIN THE BENEFIT SYSTEM.

MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 21:13

ermm - lots of people on benefits "take advantage" of being able to study while they're on them.

Most of the people on my course last year where on benefits and were doing the course as a building block for the future.

mw27pink · 25/10/2010 21:16

Good for them- and they will not be on benefit for much longer...

...is the others that need a push and a shove....

MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 21:21

dunno - I'm still here and will be until this time next year (unless a miracle happens Grin).

Fingers crossed I'll be able to continue with my degree and get it finished when I start work - but it may end up being nothing more than a couple of courses which do 0 for my future.

allbie · 25/10/2010 21:37

How can you decide to go part-time like that and receive so much? I would've thought that if it was by choice then you wouldn't be eligible? Obviously, I'm far too simplistic but I was under the impression you had to prove you couldn't work the hours you were doing previously and prove eligibility before being granted a free ride?

EvilAllenPoe · 25/10/2010 22:23

silly question - but on direct.gov it says I (and the OP) wouldn't be entitled to HB anyway (unless there is a disabled household member, or she was a single parent, which she isn't)

and yet, the locl council calculator still came up with £184 allowed per week inputting similar data to the op (couple, 20 hours worked, 4 kids)-

which is it?

gaelicsheep · 25/10/2010 22:24

Lots of confusion on this thread about working vis a vis claiming benefits. Most people who claim HB do work you know. And exactly why should the OP herself go back to work any time soon, having 3 children and a baby to look after?

I still say it is very unfortunate how the OP phrased things. But 4 kids for one person is one hell of an undertaking, especially when one is a young baby. I have a 4 month old and a 4 year old, my DH is at home much of the time and we are struggling due to our individual circumstances. I am due to go back full time in a couple of months and I worry hugely about how DH will cope in his current state of health. If I had the option to go back part time I would take it.

From my reading of many of the posts, I think many people are claiming moral outrage when actually they are envious that the OP's family has a choice that they do not.

Are there really people on this thread who would choose to struggle by on a reduced income, however that came about, and not claim any benefits to which they are entitled? Really and truly? I think it's easy to say that if you've never had to raise 4 children on £20k a year.

gaelicsheep · 25/10/2010 22:26

There is also confusion about benefits and tax credits eg allbie's post. We are not in so much of a nanny state that we have to justify to the Govt all the decision that we take in our lives, although from the sounds of it some people might prefer it that way.

scaryteacher · 25/10/2010 22:27

She was doing it on £34k though Gaelic if you read the op. Somewhat different.

You can bet your bottom dollar if my dh gets made redundant in the defence cuts, there will be no help whatsoever available to us.

vespasian · 25/10/2010 22:29

I only said that it would be wise for her to return to work if her husband wanted time at home to be with the children and retrain. My husband wanted exactly that so we gradually swopped roles.

I have worked at a loss in the past when we have been on about £20K a year.

I can assure you there is no envy here, we have the choices that the OP has without having to rely on the state.

vespasian · 25/10/2010 22:29

Good point scary there is a huge difference between 34K and 20K.

MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 22:31

gaelic - no - I wouldn't have reduced my hours to part time - just because I wanted a few extra days at home with my family - I'd have reduced them to "normal" working hours.

It's not the actual reducing hours that bothers me (as detailed above when you posed some differing scenarios) it's the reasons for doing it.

I'm afraid I still don't buy the "4 kids is a huge undertaking thing" there are 1000's of parents that have a partner to help out when he's finished his 40 hours a week), and even single parents who are working on top of looking after the children that manage.

I'm actually quite looking forward to working, especially when school holidays come round - as I shall expect DS1 (who will more than likely have to keep himself amused at home while I work) to have done at least a little housework when I get home - he's already being trained up now WinkGrin

gaelicsheep · 25/10/2010 22:39

I did read the OP thanks. It has been suggested on this thread that what they have done would be acceptable to Mumsnet if they just lived on the £20k and didn't claim anything to which they are entitled. I was saying that is easy to say if you've never had to do it.

I have stated my feelings about the OP elsewhere on this thread, but I do feel it is easy for any of us to judge without knowing the exact circumstances. Would people think badly of me in my situation, with a DH with depression and in increasingly bad health, if I chose to go part time? If yes, well don't worry, I won't be a drain on your taxes because we have a mortgage so I can't reduce my income.

MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 22:44

huh - who said you didn't read the OP Confused

I was talking about when you gave 3 differing reasons for reducing hours a bit further up there somewhere.

No - I wouldn't think badly of you - even if you were a drain on my (imaginary Grin) taxes, your reasons for potentially reducing your hours are motivated by an ill DH.

Thants quite different to doing it because you want an easier ride imo

happiestblonde · 25/10/2010 22:46

I work 15 hours a day. This is disgusting.

happiestblonde · 25/10/2010 22:48

Sorry that was incredibly harsh, sorry. I understand people making this decision - it makes sense - but it does bother my wildly ver taxed tired brain that it pays to work less.

OP - I apologise.

gaelicsheep · 25/10/2010 22:53

Sorry MaMo - that was at scaryteacher!

If the OP hadn't been written in this tone, we wouldn't be assuming it was for a free ride. If there was a "better" reason would people have responded differently? I do hope so.

tittybangbang · 25/10/2010 23:00

No more outrageous than rich people becoming tax exiles or indulging in tax avoidance schemes.

Actually less so - because rich people could pay a fair rate of tax and still have a very good standard of living.

Why should the poor make huge personal sacrifices for the sake of the economy when the rich aren't willing to do so?

GiddyPickle · 25/10/2010 23:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 23:05

ahh - no wonder it didn't quite make sense to me Blush

I would have responded differently had she had "better" reasons yes.

And I think others would have too.

Certainly when I posted earlier this year giving my "stay in the family home and try to find work - and potentially lose the home anyhow, or "move out and go onto benefits for the time being" the over whelming majority told me to take the option I have.

In hindsight MN was (once again) very wise as I had no idea just how much I would fall to pieces in the following few months. Had I actually managed to find work I'm not sure I would have been much good to anyone in it and I'm quite certain I wouldn't be sat her quite so compos mentis as I am today, now actually in a mental state fit to look for work.

Heck I struggled to keep on top of my once a week church music stuff and that's a great love and passion of mine!!

vespasian · 26/10/2010 06:08

I don't call going out to work a huge personal sacrifice. It is posssible to disaprove of tax avoidance and wanting to claim benefits beacause you are lazy.

MassiveKnob · 26/10/2010 07:07

I suppose the OP is lucky that not everyone takes her attitude. The whole country would be on benefits.

The issue lies with the government who are prepared to let people work part time, and top them up willy nilly.

ccpccp · 26/10/2010 09:24

"Why should the poor make huge personal sacrifices for the sake of the economy when the rich aren't willing to do so?"

The poor take out of the system that the rich pay for, thats why. The poor have their begging bowls out, while rich people are forced by weight of law to fill those begging bowls. Not a hint of gratitude in sight either.

In general, tax avoiders DO pay a lot of tax. Enough to feel they have more than fairly contributed, but not enough to allow a government to keep single mums with 3 kids on 34k a year.

Its not a coincidence that tax avoidance rocketted under Labour. People who didnt like the way the system was going simply took themselves out of it by offshoring. A brain drain, without the drain.

GiddyPickle · 26/10/2010 09:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.