£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?

and lets face it - with a rent and council tax of £1k a month, even if the OP hadn't claimed tax credits, with child benefit taken into account they'd still have had £1200 a month left to pay bills and buy food etc on his 34k before tax income.

I know obama - I think that's why they don't ask for housing benefit and tax credits why your income has reduced, as so many people are forced to make the choice (as opposed to choose it like the OP).

It's just JSA afaik that is affected if you're sacked or resign.

Lol great thread! This is exactly the sort of reason why the UK is in the shit. But OP, hope you haven't got yourselves too comfy, because it's all going to change, and you may find YOU'RE in the shit then, unable to continue your life style choice, expecting other people to work to pay to support you two. Have you thought about your pensions? Thought not. Not going to be so cosy later then is it. Also, housing benefits etc are only paying your living costs NOW- it's not an investment in the future. You seem to believe you're being terribly clever by playing the system, but I think you're actually being incredibly stupid and short sighted. I wouldn't employ someone who had reduced their working hours to 20 a week, or was choosing not to work. So good luck with things when your free ride gets pulled from under your feet!

Well its been said before but I can't hold back on this one. In my view (and I am entitled o a view) your attitude is a disgrace. Why should we work hard to support your lifestyle. Someone has to pay tax o fund benefits - it doesn't come from trees. You say you sleep well, well I couldn't.

I can't blame anyone for doing whatever works best for them - but these figures just say it all really, don't they?

Bitchywitchy - what is your DH's takehome pay now? Gross I mean? And what was it before? Genuine question.

Having said I don't blame the OP for taking advantage, that doesn't mean I think she's right either. What I think is, that people who work hard for a fairly modest amount of money will see the other families living long-term, with no pressure to change the situation, on the same or more for NOT WORKING AT ALL and will, quite understandably, feel bitter about it. They will decide to take advantage because the system lets them, and the way the system is set up at the moment, you could be forgiven for thinking that the (previous) government doesn't actually value a strong work ethic and self-sufficiency at all.

I've double checked the housing benefit figures on that income and the TC's - they just don't add up.

I think the OP really needs to learn to use entitled to properly.

FWIW if the OP's DH lost his job and they were on full benefits they were have £500 less a month than they currently do.

they would have that should read

This thread has been posted in a deliberately inflammatory manner to piss people off. Crowing away, look what we get ha ha ha knowing full well what reaction will be.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if OP was some sort of plant (not the green sort obv) designed to get people sounding off about benefit claimants.

Posters saying 'divide and rule' have it about right.

janos - but that wouldn't make sense (them being a plant) as one thing I did note in the spending review was the those claiming WTC wouldn't be affected by the benefits cap).

PlentyofPockets - yes, new rules from 2012 I think will mean the 24 hours must be split between the two partners. So if one partner currently doing anything less than 24, presumably family won't qualify until other partner earns too. I didnt read that there was an opt out clause for mums with very young children either, so obviously factoring in travelling costs and childcare for maybe an 8 hour job per week is going to cause problems for many families

OP is full of shit. Don't believe this for one second.

" didnt read that there was an opt out clause for mums with very young children either, so obviously factoring in travelling costs and childcare for maybe an 8 hour job per week is going to cause problems for many families"

really - seriously - you can't honestly believe that.

Working 8hrs a week around someone that is working only 16hrs a week is unlikely to cause a problem for most families. There are loads of jobs for under 10hrs a week (lots and lots of cleaning around here), and fitting them around a partners 16hrs a week would be fairly simple for most I'm sure.

Fair point, maybe she just wants to wind people up MaMoTTaT!

I'm a bit sceptical about employers agreeing to a 20 hour week without a very good reason.

I work 30 hours a week in the public sector with very good t&c. I only got those hours agreed to because of my circumstances (single mum, relying on paid childcare, not much practical support).

Jesus, if working eight hours a week, when your partner is only working part time, will cause you 'serious problems' then you need to have a word with yourself.

Spare a thought for people who only earn £14k a year working FT, and have mortgages so don't have the perk of Housing Benefit.

perhaps the partner could go and and find another job for 8hrs a week if it's too difficult for the non-working one.

Well it could do. I don't mean my situation but I have sympathy for some young mums.

Because one partner is working 16 hours, does not mean it is 2 x 8 hour days. It could well be split over 4 or 5 days. Now how easy is it for a partner to find a part time job in today's climate to exactly fit in with partner's hours. These jobs are usually minimum wage ones, so yes, travelling and childcare do have to be considered.

It doesn't affect me in the slightest - I won't have dependent children - but I have sympathy for others and not the I'm alright Jack attitude that is currently being displayed. It's a time when jobs are hard to find, I'd be very impressed if all the women suddenly wanting part time jobs to fit round their partners hours, do actually find them, and some young mums do not have extended family to step in.

Working parents = deprived children!!!!!
You are talking utter rubbish! You only hear things like this from people who try to justify their 'entitlements!'

Totally agree Litchick. Some people's coping thresholds must be very low. Good god - if one partner is working , say 16 - 20 hours, and the other partner is bleating that they can't manage 8 as well.... the combined figures still don't add up to one full time job between the two of them!

No wonder the country's in a state if people seriously think they can't cope with a part time job!