£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 No MaMoTTat the partner couldnt go and find another job for 8 hours because it will need to be shared from April 2012

I thought I'd read that wrong that someone "can't be expected to work 8 hours a week". Christ on a bike - the woman in question probably spends more time putting on her make-up. :( What a fucking state we're in if 8 hours a week is an insult to someone's human rights.

As for the original topic - I think this highlights exactly why tough measures need to be brought in. It's fundamentally wrong that someone trying to do the right thing (i.e., work and provide) is penalised. But it's great to see all the entitlement brigade ranting.

no it doesn't need to be shared - it just has to be 24hrs between them - it doesn't matter whether once is working 24hrs - or whether they split it 12 hours each. So long as 24hrs are being worked a week in the household.

cleaning work and bar work are usualy "out of hours" jobs.

Believe me if I could afford to take an 8hr a week job (and had childcare for more unsociable hours) I'm pretty sure I could (almost) walk into one there seems to be no shortage of those round here -

No, no one said 'cant be expected to work 8 hours a week' - dont twist things.

It was stated why does it HAVE to be so. Why cannot one partner work 24. Why does it HAVE to be split.

it doesn't have to be split

I would have thought that the stigma of having both parents at home most of the working week was worse than the deprivation of having two working parents.

And I say that as someone whose dad died when I was very young leaving mum to bring us up on her own. She could only find part time jobs. It wasn't nice.

I agree that it can be difficult to fit two PT jobs around each other, especially when a lot of low paid PT jobs eg retail need employees to be flexible in the days and hours that they work. However, in the case of the OP her husband's job is clearly not low paid and she has stated that he works the 20 hours over 2 days. Which leaves 5 days for her to work at least some of!

I am shocked at this thread. I am pretty damn sure the OP is a troll of some sort - not that many people have the front to shout proudly about being better off on benefits. What does shock me, however, is that there is quite a bit of support for her on this thread.

What comes up time and time again on threads like this, is the idea of "the system" or "government money" or "entitled to". I think some people need to do some very basic reading and understand the economy a little better. An awful lot of people don't seem to understand that there is no such thing as government money. The money that the OP (assuming she is real) is putting in her pocket is my money, and my family's money, and other MNetters' money. If she (and many, many other people like her) supported themselves and didn't claim this money, the benefits bill would be smaller and less of our money would be spent on benefits. This money could then be spent on other vital aspects of our economy - services, education, or just reducing our deficit so that we aren't driving the country further and further into debt.

I don't really understand how we have become such a selfish, short-sighted nation. This idea of "entitled to" isn't something that our grandparents and great-grandparents would have understood at all - not being able to support yourself and your family would have been so shameful. If the OP had told one of her neighbours this a couple of generations ago, she would almost certainly have been completely shunned. My great-great-grandfather who died just before WWII had 16 children and worked into his late 70s in a hard manual job. He apparantly kept retiring, having managed to save some money for his old age, but finished up helping other family members out and going back to work for a couple of years to make some more retirement money. He is still remembered in the family, even though only a couple of people who knew him are still alive. By all accounts he would be utterly bewildered by the attitude of people like the OP. I'm glad he never had to see this shift in ideals, otherwise he might have regretted working so long and hard.

MaMoTTat _ it will have to be split from April 2012.

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

Not everyone who stays at home does get extra benefit do they? I have been a SAHM for the last 10 years and never got any extra benefits what are this 'entitlements' you are talking about?( I am genuinly asking because it is the second time this morning I read on here that SAHM are somehow scrunging and I would like to know how exactly they are?)

Agree with the point about 'government money' kungfu.

There is no such thing.

'Govt money' is generated by people working. The bottom line is: why should we accept a society that says that quite arbitrarily, some people should be the workers, while some people are the takers?

Fair enough that people who CAN'T support themselves are provided for. Totally unfair when it's people who can.

It's hard to believe that the country has allowed this mess to happen.

where did you read/here that?

They're simple raising it from the current 16 hours a week to 24 hours a week.

I've seen no mention of them changing it so it has to be split - just an increase in the number of hours that must be worked in the household.

Currently they had to work 16 hours between them.

Well it's fine and dandy to not work if you can support yourself either by your partner's income or through other sources.

But if you can't do that, then you have to work...

I don't think it will have to be split.

Quote from here :

Working hours requirement for couples: From April 2012, couples with children must work 24 hours between them, with at least one working 16 hours, to gain entitlement to WTC. At present, couples with children qualify for WTC if at least one of them works 16 hours a week or more

I read that as as long as 24 hours are worked between them, eg one works 24+ and the other doesn't work, or one works 16hrs and the other works 8 etc then they will still get TC

24 hours is still way below one full time job! I really can't understand why it's a problem to any family, whether one or both parents are working it. It's still less than 5 hours a day, on 5 days a week - do people really think that's a lot?

But is the OP actually true?

Phew.
We wouldn't want women demeaned by having to work eight hours, now.

That's what I read it as as well domestic.

Annie - I don't think it is - I can't get any of her figures to add up.

I work full time - does this make me ultra-demeaned?
Maybe I am debased, not just demeaned.....

Annie - the OP may not in this instance being truthful - however, the story is true and I've seen similar stories told across mn alone by the entitlement brigade. I think a lot of benefit's claimants don't understand that what they receive is "tax free".

I agree violethill. DH works a 45 hour week and I work 15 hrs. I feel quite lucky that I can fit my hours around the DC's school day and DH is always home at weekends. Any childcare needed is done by their wonderful Grandma. My DC are far from deprived.

Benefits aside - gosh, how do you spend nearly 24/7 with your partner without resorting to murder? I'm on maternity leave right now (not for much longer thank goodness) and my partner works early-morning shifts. I like a bit of "me" time - couldn't imagine living with him day-in, day-out for the forseeable. Retirement will be fun!

I can't guarantee that I'm not being demeaned though. And the 15hrs does rather cut into my MN time...

kungfu - I think you need to think about your ickle babies and thier suffering.

Far better to claim money from the tax payer...oh hold on a mo. That's me then.

Oh I get it. It's okay for me to work, and for my children to 'suffer' so that I can pay tax for someone else's not to...

The OP is doing something that's legal but is called immoral for doing it.

There was a discussion recently on here about offshore accounts & tax avoidance; the main thrust being that 'it's legal so it's OK'.

There's immorality at the top and bottom of the tree.

Alpine I'm glad you said that as my thoughts were exactly the same! I love my DH to bits, but when we retire I am going to have to find a time consuming hobby to get me out of the house or I'm sure I will kill him!