£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?

OP - although I can (sort of) understand your logic. That attitude is amazingly unhelpful, especially as it can create more problems for those actually in need.

People already believe that benefits are mainly claimed by people who have chosen them as a lifestyle, rather than through need. And are already more than willing to make the life of those who are already struggling even more hellish.

DH and I get abuse in the street because we cannot work, abuse from total strangers who claim to know our financial situation!

You (and people like you) talking about benefits as a beneficial lifestyle choice can actually cause harm to others.

OP good for you! If it makes your life easier, allows you to parent in a less stressful environment and is possible... then go for it!!
I seriously can't see why people get their knickers in a twist on here, its like Jeremy Kyle episode, there will be pantomime booing and hissing soon. Be angry with the system, not the people who use it.

So you're happy to take handouts that you don't need so people who do need them get less then? No doubt you are passing your utter lack of respect for society on to your children too and they will also end up as benefit scroungers and complete and utter B'*. And that' dear lady is the closest I have ever got to swearing on mnet. As my mother would say the pair of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Being logical - how do you get away with it if DH voluntarily reduced his hours?

Okay

Don't worry the system is about to change. You won't be able to enjoy 'my' money for that much longer!

Totally shameless attitude and I guess one of the reasons that this country is a mess!

No point getting upset about it. The op is arranging her affairs perfectly legally in order to best provide for her family. Just like all those high earners who we are told are not avoiding tax but rather practising sensible tax planning. I don't see any difference.

The fact that it's possible for her to do this might tell us something about the perilous state of the economy though. And if we think the OP is doing well out of this arrangement, spare a thought for her landlord who is getting his/her mortgage fully paid by the state, and getting tax relief on the interest to boot.

Yeah, I don't understand either. Aside from the moral argument, if someone resigns, then thought there wasn't an entitlement to JSA? So, it doesn't make sense that by voluntarily reducing one's hours one is entitled to a range of benefits

Good point obama - it might not be possible to do this at all. I had just assumed that if the op wasn't for real, it would at least be someone who wanted to make a point and had researched the facts accordingly, but maybe not.

OP, I know this way forward sounds tempting.
Why work, when the state will pay?

But you have to look at the long game. How this will impact upon your family in the longer term.

These benefits will come to an end soon and am damn sure that whatever flavour of government we see, they won't return any time soon.
And what will you be able to offer employers then? No work exerience for you, and a PT job for DH. That will put you both at a massive disadvantage.

And what of your children? Do you really want them growing up with little experience of what a working life entails? For, as sure as eggs are eggs, they are gonna need to understand that the future is going to entail hard graft or abject poverty.

Obama - he hasn't resigned though - he's had his hours reduced in the same job as before.

A situation which I'm sure many people have found themselves forced into - either take a cut in hours, or lose your job totally because of the recession.

it's JSA that can be affected if you choose to be out of work, afaik housing benefit and tax credits don't want to know wheter you've chosen to reduce your income, or been forced to.

My husband works 16 hours a week in a slave labour job. He was made redundant from his full time job and being at an unfortunate age and economic climate found it difficult to gain full time employment. He took the part time job on to be a role model for our son in that you take what is offered and do not laze about all day.

Working tax credits build that income to one that is liveable. I cannot work due to the fact that the working tax credit will be reduced by my earnings and I am sure as hell not going to work for nothing. I care for a 99 year old and similarly cannot claim carers allowance for the same reason.

The post holder has 4 children. Do you think it's going to be achievable working and juggling the needs of 4 young ones. Dont you think a family with 4 young ones need a mum around. She is doing what all of you do - balancing the books, budgeting. It makes economic sense. Nothing illegal. The system may not be fair, but that isn't her fault.

I think the new rules regarding working tax credits are despicable with both partners having to work takes no account of child needs. If one partner is willing to work 24 hours why isnt that good enough? Why does one have to work 16 and the other 8 to make the 24. Oh, I forgot. It's about making life difficult and not economic sense.

Good luck to the postholder. She will have to work 8 hours or so by 2012 which will deprive her children. I hope this government are very very pleased with themselves.

whyiambothering - I think there's a difference between choosing to work part time, and as your DH has, having to take a part time job or not be employed at all.

Would your DH have turned down a 40hr a week job if he was offered it in favour of the 16hr a week one?

But if her husband is working part time, she isn't a sole carer for her children is she?
He can help with child care.

It's called a partnership.

how on earth is her working 4hrs a week (which is all the OP will need, or 8hrs for arguments sake) deprive her children if her DH is only working 20hrs a week.

She says he's at home 5 days a week, I'm sure she can find a Saturday job, or a cleaning job for a couple of hours a week to easily fit around her DH's hours without depriving the children in the slightest.

and god help children of 2 income households, and working single parents hey if their parents working when the work is on offer "deprives" the chiildren.

Oh yes, the sheer deprivation suffered by children watching thier mothers work half a day a week. Oh the suffering....

Are you for real?

WhyamIbothering. Good luck to your DH and I too think it's wrong that if one gets a job benefits are cut to make people no better off than they would be without one. But in the OP's case - there is a job and they are better off. I don't quite see the logic of your argument because there appears to be nothing other than utter selfishness preventing the OP's DH from working full time. As a family they have chosen to cut the hours because they are financially slightly better off on benefits and that is wrong.

When my dcs were young DH worked full time (out from 8 to about 8) and I stayed at home. We were both working full time!! Had DH cut his hours at that point his career prospects would have suffered hugely.

My DH was made redundant for his finance job in 2008 just after we had DD. It was a bad time jobwise and there was no other jobs in that area.

We could have claimed benefits for a while, but instead DH took a delivery job to pay the bills and I was still on SMP. He also went for an interview at McDonalds.

Its about doing what you think is best for your family, but I know my DH would be too proud not to work. He would see it as sponging (crime no.1 in his book).

He would have jumped at the chance of a 40 hr a week job, having had no replies to over 200 applications. In some respects the 16 hour rule has limited my options, but I'm confident of my employment prospects or self employment when the 99 year old I am caring for, is called to her heavenly home.

My husband worked from the age of 16 to 47 in a full time job and thought nothing of it. It was what everyone did. The part time job he now has isn't secure. They have threatened to reduce it to 12 which isnt worth doing and the unions have fought for the right to retain it at 16 hours. He is now well over 50 and industry has left this town. I doubt he will work full time again and he is doing all he can to cling onto the part time job he has. I am actually looking forward to working. I see it as a challenge, but I have no bitter words for the post holder. It's just a question of economics

Welcome to mumsnet OP.

"He would have jumped at the chance of a 40 hr a week job"

and there is the huge difference imo between you and the OP.

The OP's DH had a full time job (and the OP also states elsewhere that he could easily increase his hours if he wanted to) and he chose to go part time. He mad a concious choice to claim 24k of benefits (10k of the OP's income is actually her DH's wages). Instead of taking home 24k from work and getting around 10k in benefits)

I've just skimmed this thread.

Maybe what we see here is an analogy for our society's problems. This 'everywoman for herself' () attitude is now pervasive across society, when once it was limited to the wealthy.

Although the 'rich' always had an obligation to look after the less fortunate in history by sharing the scraps from their tables, now the 'poor' have access to a ringfenced amount of money (not that it has decreased the divide between the two). Now the rich have an ally in Cameron and his government and are putting masses of pressure behind the scenes to reduce the money we give to the 'poor' so the fat cats who really run our country can keep it in their pockets. Well, offshore accounts.

BW said she won't regret this on her death bed, but I think she might. She is contributing to the breakdown of our society and it is at this time we have to pull together and make a stand.

March today in Edinburgh here Hope to see you there

Oh fair enough. Not exactly voluntary though is it if one has to choose a reduction in hours or lose one's job.

"I think the new rules regarding working tax credits are despicable with both partners having to work takes no account of child needs. If one partner is willing to work 24 hours why isnt that good enough? Why does one have to work 16 and the other 8 to make the 24. Oh, I forgot. It's about making life difficult and not economic sense."

Is this what they're doing? I thought the new rules meant that you had to be working 24 hours between you, however it was split, not that both partners had to do some of the hours.