Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

lets have a tax credit rant thread

155 replies

maighdlin · 18/04/2011 10:25

as it is the joyful new tax credit year i thought i would start a thread for people to rant on.

our tax credits have gone down to £33pw when according to HMRC calculator it should be £68pw. i received no letter from them informing me of this cut. i phoned them and they are using an estimate of our income based on the assumption that i would have been working full time since having DD, not true was made redundant. They said i can't get it fixed until i receive my renewal pack and i may not receive it until 30 june. GREAT!! DH earns just over 15k we pay 660pm for mortgage and rates. i'm a full time student but most of my money goes on child care. can't get a job as most jobs that i could do are min wage and they would have to pay me more than a 16 year old so 16 year old probably gets job. I feel like banging my head against the wall. even more money worries!!

feel free to vent about tax credits below. overpayments, underpayments, their general unhelpfulness...

OP posts:
berrieberrie · 19/04/2011 08:09

home00 citybird is talking about families where one is a sahp and the other earns a low wage therefore because tax credits are based on a family's income is is oftenthe case that TC are allowing people to take the choice to work only 16 hours or to stay at home with their children. In your case your husband obviously supports your choice to stay at home - which is no ones business but your own.

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 19/04/2011 08:25

There's a flipside to that 16 hour thing though, something we will lose under UC in fact and that IMO willpenalise carers esp. hard.

I am a carer; in a complicated way but already have a thread in chat bleating (called scared or soemthing) so don;t want to type it out again. Suffice it to say my choices upped and went. DH had a great job, then got made redundant- they diversified and closed down the aspect Dh worked in. Nothing to do with collapse. There's over 20% unemployment where we are, walking into a nother job wasn;t going to happen and we had GP telling DH to take 6 months of- also not going to happen. So Dh had had a very little businessy thing just designed to enable him to cover his hobby. He's working on getting that to a proper income whilst studying FT and accruing the required (some by law) quals. So we fall into the 16 - 30 hour bracket with me doing a very few hours when I can. but he also is studying FT and works as many hours as anyone.

He could have taken up the GPs advice and stopped working altogetehr of course; I don;t know that he's ahve coped with a busy workplace but from home he can, and uni support him wher he can. he's doing well there. A phd has been mentioned, though probably unaffordable.

So you see, far from the 16 hours at home/ laze about chooser image poeple have.

The WTC requirements for couples rises to 24 hours under UC (so for he WTC equiv I guess, though they never specified that- you'll be unlikley to find an MP saying 'why yes, TCs are going' even though they are). AFAICS people who don;t want to work full time becuase they are lazy will still have a nice little break on 24 hours, but as caring isn;t going to be considered as hours, I know a fair few couples (not us by then, DH will have graduated) where the partner either works short time because they help at home with a severely disabled child or where they lost their last job and can't find anything else (any work better than no work, right?) who will lose. People caring for a spuse are extra vulnerable as if they go over 20 hours hteir carer's support will end, but under 24 and they get no working credits, and of course their spouse can;t work due to disability. It's a bit of an awkward anomally. They should imo change the system so that being a carer shows up as having 8 hours work, bringing carer-couples into line with single aprents who have to still hit the 16 hour traget after UCs come in.

berrieberrie · 19/04/2011 08:32

The bottom line is that every situation is differnet and different people have a differnet idea about who is worthy of benefits.
I wish there was an answer to make it fair.

wonderstuff · 19/04/2011 08:41

Well we are appealing an over payment, which meant that we had to claim in order to not pay back the money that we were overpaid due to HMRC error. They are reviewing the overpayment, I have no idea when we will get an answer on that. We got a letter through saying we weren't entitled to anything, but we were welcome to claim incase our circumstances changed..
So we no longer are entitled to the money we weren't getting but I don't know if we now have to pay them anything..

Bloody ridiculous system, seems to be administered by 3 offices in different parts of the country - the waste of money running such an inefficient system, makes me so cross. Why is it so easy for them to take money from us, but so very difficult for them to dole it out?

goodbyemrschips · 19/04/2011 08:48

Going against the grain here.

I have never had a prob with them.

Each year I fill out what we have earned.

Then they send me a letter detailing what we will get.

Even when I worked and had a small business for two years it was simple.

GeorgeT · 19/04/2011 08:52

Seen my single mum working sister see a drop in her tc. I thought this government's mantra was to reward work, clearly not in her case. Unfortunately we have politicians, mostly very wealthy men, making decisions about something the know nothing of, the micro economics of childcare. i doubt they even know the costs involved. It has left people on low incomes very vulnerable. Rant oh boy....I've only just begun!

WhatOnEarthIsIt · 19/04/2011 08:59

When I start my new job I will be working double the hours for hardly any extra money each month due to a drop in TC. We would actually be better off if I gave up my job and stayed at home full time. It;s madness.

missymarmite · 19/04/2011 09:46

So with UC, I assume that EVERYONE will get it, right? How is that going to balance the inequality between the lowest and they highest paid? While there are people earning huge amounts, and others not earning enough to live on, prices are going to remain inflated.

Take housing as a case in point. Those with pots of cash can afford to buy second, thrid homes, while the poorest cannot even afford to rent one tiny place without help. Universal credit will not solve this problem. The poor will still be poor, and the rich will still be obscenely rich, and buy far, far more than they actually need, inflating prices for the rest of us.

missymarmite · 19/04/2011 10:02

In fact, as well as an increase int he minimum wage, I would prefer a system where the lowest paid in a company were legally entitled to at the very least a certain percentage of their senior executive's salary. So if the person at the top earns £200,000, the lowest pay cannot fall beneath a certain % (say 10% for example). Bonuses and perks (ie company car) included. That way, all workers in the business have a vested interest in its success and benefit from the same % bonuses.

This would also force the rest of the market to fall in line with pay.

missymarmite · 19/04/2011 10:15

Also, fully/partially subsidised public childcare, no need for the complicated tc system to get involved. Would most likely save in administration costs alone!

OH! Was that a pig flying past? Grin

EdwardorEricCantDecide · 19/04/2011 10:28

missymarmite i love your idea about bottom in company getting % of top, your right though pretty sure i just saw a pig fly past too.

EdwardorEricCantDecide · 19/04/2011 10:29

anyone else think we would get better policies if we had a lot more women in parliament (sp?) Blush

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 19/04/2011 10:32

UC isn;t really UC, it's universal only in the sense that there's one (well 3 including Sn benefits) for all.

Still very much means tested though.

UC isn't supposed to solve that inquality. Ultimately whatever party is in power it is one of second home oweners and private landlords. Why would they want to see a change?

mamatomany · 19/04/2011 10:33

The likes of Cadbury's used to run a similar scheme, along with subsidized housing for workers. It can be a reality but people don't seem to want that, they want the state to intervene via taxation. No business is going to pay through the nose for taxes and then offer their workers excellent pensions, healthcare, childcare etc you cannot have it both ways, which is sad because generally the bigger companies provided a much better service.

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 19/04/2011 10:45

Mama I too would support that sort of intervention (with a suitable safety net for the non working) but the likes of Cadbury went the way of the profit (DH worked on a contract for them) like so many others. Ideals sold out long ago.

mamatomany · 19/04/2011 10:47

Which came first though the corporation tax or the selling out for profit, sure plenty of places will take the micky but plenty of other companies were good ethical employers until the government started squeezing them.

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 19/04/2011 10:49

Well with Cadburys I think what came first was the demise of the Quaker aspect of the owning managers wasn't it?

positivesteps · 19/04/2011 15:15

Why not live your life not concentrating on what benefits you can get. Why not live it thinking you just have what you earn so make the best of what you have and try to look at ways to improve your situation rather than looking to benefits as the answer. . I don't think its good to rely on these benefits as they can be cut at anytime.

LaWeasel · 19/04/2011 15:21

That's all very nice positive, but in some situations that is simply impossible. Are you aware that full time minimum wage in this country is not much more than 10k a year?

A single parent would really struggle to afford any kind of housing, taxes, utilities, food with that, let alone occasional costs like needing medication, replacing worn out clothes or buying uniforms, needing furniture...

positivesteps · 19/04/2011 15:38

I take your point and there are exceptions and possibly it is a short term solution for some eg training to gain but surely in many cases it doesn't need to be a plan to live like this forever. ?

doley · 19/04/2011 15:39

laWeasel exactly ... it all looks so easy on paper right ?

The reality is that many are now on minimum wage ...Many people that were not before .

Plus,there will always be a need for minimum wage workers ...they deserve a reasonable standard of living too .

Not everyone can command a high salary .

positivesteps · 19/04/2011 15:42

You have to either try to better your life or situation or cut costs so you don't rely on them forever.

doley · 19/04/2011 15:47

positive correct ...but that is way to simplistic ~life just does not work that way .

Most people know that ,it really is stating the obvious don't you think ? :)

inmysparetime · 19/04/2011 16:19

we're over the threshold by £200, but have not had a letter to say that we're losing our tax credits. I have budgeted to lose them, that way if they pay us too much and claw it back I wasn't counting on them.
We're losing child benefit next year too, as hubby is just a higher rate tax payer. I work, but get below tax threshold, so we aren't even benefitting from the tax allowance transfer. I suppose we are the "squeezed middle" that politicians have been citing as the budget losers, but it feels like we're taking all the cuts right now.

EdwardorEricCantDecide · 19/04/2011 16:44

inmysparetime the really sad thing is u would probably be a lot better off if you're DH took a cpl of thousand paycut to take u just below high rate tax.
What kind of society penalises people for trying to better themselves and get on in life.

I love the expression "squeezed middle" it was invented to make politicians feel better about the cuts as middle classes can afford it when really they are still affecting the poorest in society paying the price.