to think that 20 grand on benefits a year is loads

[MrsBucketxx]

considering they dont pay any income tax.

just watching we pay your benefits program and worked out that this is over 30 grand if it was a normal tax paying salary.

why was this not mentioned.

Thats what I mean there is no excuse for not working as you get your childcare paid if you are on low income, so to me its lazy claiming all the money from the state when you can help provide for yourself. Its a bad message for your children imo not to do any work when there is no reason why you cant.

Fair enough. I though you were referring to all sahp.

Happy

Duh! Hello, I can't afford not to be. I am not bitter though as being a sahm has given me several opportunities I wouldn't have had if I had worked for an employer. However, admittedly I/ we did make that choice, nobody forced me.
My children know how to add up and are happy we made the choices we have made, the older ones telling us how they feel we made the right decision. I'm sure dd realises this too as she does say things which makes me assume this.
My children and dh are the people whose opinion I value in life, not a random person on an internet forum.

'Tax credits exist because some families are incapable of earning enough to cover basic living expenses, and it is cheaper for the state to subsidise them in work than it is to have them living only on benefits.'

Tax credits didnt exist until 10 years ago. What changed?
We managed on one salary with a mortgage. One small salary of 18K I might add. A camping holiday once a year in the UK and we thought we were fine. What changed that meant tax credit were needed?
House prices and rents is what. That salary x3 bought a 3 bed semi in the south east and would have paid rent. 10 years on dh's salary is now 20K (not much below average) but you can bet your knickers that rents and house prices are not 3 times that.

Socks

You are right regarding illness and I have used the NHS.

Kinda off point though I'd say...only mo though

I do wonder what ways universal credit will be exploited?

I guess I'll have to watch here with interest to see whatever some are 'entitled to'

Again I have absolutely no issue with those who have need of govt support.
My problem is with those too idle or self centred/absorbed to contribute rather than take, take, take

Tax credits exist because some families are incapable of earning enough to cover basic living expenses
errr.no, tax credits exist because work does not pay enough to live and also as a form of social control.

I don't get tax credits - was told that I wasn't entitled due to owning my house...

Again I have absolutely no issue with those who have need of govt support.
My problem is with those too idle or self centred/absorbed to contribute rather than take, take, take

And you know which are which, do you? Because I have noticed that the minute someone on here points out they are on benefits and why, people flock around them like vultures to pick apart their lives and gleefully point out what mistakes they have made/are making that have landed them on benefits. Disgraceful IMO.

MOST people are not thrilled to be on benefits, but do what they have to in order to make sure their children are provided for. Very few people are high-fiving and doing air-punches because they're living on benefits.

FFS. Who made you all the benefits police? Is there a badge sold on Amazon or something? I get so tired of this. Talk about self-centred or self-absorbed. Pot meet kettle.

Twisty that and the fact I was paying under a third of what I now pay per month for gas/electric. Food for the week was easy on £30 and now I have to cut out anything not strictly necessary, like chocolate biscuits :(

Ronald, i suspect even more will claim to be SE to continue to claim or will add themselves to their partners books where both adults need to work. No different to single parernts having another child just as their youngest no longer qualifies them for IS etc.

Ronald

UC seems as though it will hit the people on the "old welfare" system that existed before tax credits and some other benefits became "welfare"
It will hit the disabled and carers the most, which is diabolical. The single unemployed are to be targeted as well.
I think just about everybody who receives benefit will lose something.
To receive UC I believe all those out of work will have to be actively seeking work. There are different rules regarding hours you are expected to work dependant on how old your children are.
I think we will lose benefit as I will not join the job seekers, not as an employee anyway.
I don't think it will happen tbh, the trial has already been scrapped in my town.

HappyMummy.

It will hit the self employed hard, nobody will be paid for a business that isn't making a profit at min wage, full time hours. You also have to supply details/tax statement every month, not annually as now.
Many small businesses will close and self employed people will lose their livelihood. But don't let that stop you bitching about something you clearly know nothing about.
But you will be fine snuggling up to your Daily Mail, looking down at others less wealthy than you.

Twisty

My dh has been receiving tax credits for about 17 years now, under different names.
We too managed on a low income whilst older 2 dc were little. Then we got a letter telling us to apply for Family Credit. There was a huge tv campaign. It was strangely linked to the time when childcare became widely available. There was no subsidy for child care then though, this came in much later.

Yes. I think that I am actually THE ENTITLED TO DECIDER. I was unaware there was a badge on Amazon.

Actually I'm not bothered, in truth. Not at all.

I'm surprised the lies people can tell themselves. The endless excuses they can make.

I do think TC should be scrapped and 100% free childcare vouchers should be offered.
This will benefit everyone in the country and lead to a more equal society.
I think benefits should be given freely to the disabled, carers and those in traumatic circumstances.

I think single people should be given a larger tax allowance.

If this became the case then SAHP and parenting in general should be a choice made by those who can truly afford it.

I think that I'd rather people were honest with themselves but I know that that is sometimes very painful for them.
I feel exploiting the system is the same as cheating the system.

Just found a page on bbc which allows you to calculate whether your household are net contributors. Used an example of a single parent earning 20k with 1 child. Apparently that family takes out £9000 more than they put in. So those wage earners on the we pay your benefits programme probably don't

Totally agree, Ronald.

Free child care would be a much better use of funds.

I think the disabled, carers and those who have a short period (perhaps 6 months or less) of unemployment should receive more than they currently do.

I also agree that something needs to be done to make things more 'fair' for single, (especially if childless) people as it does seem that they are used to provide tax income rather unfairly.

Yes both childless working and non working singles are treated unfairly.

Ronald

I don't think child care should be subsidised at all tbh. Especially if we are going by your views of why pay for other peoples life choices.
There are many people who are working, who don't financially need to. Their oh earns enough to support them all and yet they expect the pot to fund their lifestyle choice.

ronald so yo would free childcare to everyone. Even those earng say 80k. Childless people on low incomes or even those with children on average incomes would love that policy. Not.

Pot, kettle, black there morethan. You dont want the state to pay for childcare yet have quite happily for a number of years taken money from the pot so that you dont have to work.

If we are going to subsidise anything then childcare is the way to go. Far more positives, more can work, less children raised on benefits so will fare better in life, a great work ethic, girls believe they have more to aspire to in life than to simplly stay home etc.

Those that want to work then can and those that want to be a SAHP cn do so still but will have to fund that choice in life no different that any other choice that comes with financial implications.

Our teen pregnancy rate and children born into short term relationships would drop dramatically if they were no handouts.

Their oh earns enough to support them all and yet they expect the pot to fund their lifestyle choice.

You're making no sense whatsoever.

HappyMummy

Not at all, if a family is earning enough with one person working why should the state fund childcare when they can afford to pay it themselves. it is the same argument as CB that people used to take when they were earning 5x as much as those on the lowest incomes.
It is hypocritical and sickening tbh.

Childless people on low incomes or even those with children on average incomes would love that policy. Not.

I don't see the problem.

Or do you think that everyone who doesn't have a child resents free schooling, too?

Doesn't matter anyway. Because as soon as it was implemented (or even actually suggested), you'd get people complaining that some have more children than others, so they're getting more than their "fair share" from the and they should get some kind of credit for only having one or two children, while Jack & Sharon down the street have 6 children, all with free childcare, so they're able to both work fulltime. blah blah blah

Then people will whinge and say they need to limit it to a certain number of children. Then other bright sparks will start wittering on about how people should have to provide proof of birth control blah blah blah...

oh wait.. then we're right back here where we started... doesn't matter what is done, there are some that will never be happy until they've put those "scroungers on benefits" in their "proper place."