Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to think that 20 grand on benefits a year is loads

792 replies

MrsBucketxx · 19/07/2013 08:36

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.

OP posts:
CloudsAndTrees · 22/07/2013 00:05

Or, you could legitimately let the tax credits pay for your childcare, looking at it as something that helps you at the particularly expensive time in your life when your children are very young, and pay your bills yourself.

morethanpotatoprints · 22/07/2013 00:06

Lion

I missed your post, sorry.

My dhs tax credits have never paid the equivalent of a wage. It isn't a huge amount even for low incomes. Of course I am grateful that we had our dc during the tc years. However, it isn't how many believe being paid to be a sahp. I have never heard of anybody being paid to be a sahp.

RonaldMcDonald · 22/07/2013 00:12

In some ways it feels wrong to single out single posters when there must be an army of imo selfish, lazy people behaving the same way

I think that in the circumstances where you have no reason not to work but refuse to do so your family unit should not be entitled to any benefits whatsoever.

If you both work and are poorly paid then I'm happy to see you get tax credits and any other benefits we could give you to help
Ditto if you are disabled, a carer or have had a bad life event

If you loaf about at home refusing to work to manipulate the system to get tax credits then I believe your family should get zero

martini84 · 22/07/2013 00:16

I am the opposite lion. Due to dh, salary we do not receive any benefits and rightly so. Yet if we separated I would be entitled to about £300 per week.
Obviously this is unlikely to happy but its good to know that safety net is there.

Lioninthesun · 22/07/2013 00:24

Morethan but as I think you said - my friend is currently using the equivalent of her wage and a bit more for childcare. If she stops and is a SAHM they will be better of with the extra tax credits plus the extra bit back in their pockets.

Lioninthesun · 22/07/2013 00:29

Do you mean by you being a low earner or IF he paid via CSA for maintenance?
If anyone is relying on maintenance I am a classic example of why to think again Wink

martini84 · 22/07/2013 00:37

The 300 was income support tax credits and child benefit.

RonaldMcDonald · 22/07/2013 00:37

Lion

The possibly/probably would be better off.

How lucky would they be that others will work to support their greed and laziness?

Hard to have any respect for them though?

martini84 · 22/07/2013 00:39

Although actually we couldn't afford to split as neither of us could afford to buy the other out of the house.

Lioninthesun · 22/07/2013 00:42

Ronald my view exactly.
She will however be able to study from home and possibly get a better paid job when the kids are both at school (youngest is 4mo) if it works out that way. So I wonder if that would pay back the amount in tax she uses for the 4 years until then? At least she does plan to go back when they are at school though.

Lioninthesun · 22/07/2013 00:48

Martini see if you were on benefits you wouldn't have to worry about that silly house problem Wink
Wonder if that contributes to the divorce rate? I imagine it being relatively simple financially must be hard to pinpoint in surveys.
I have a feeling I will get flamed for that as if I just said Benefits people just divorce all the time for fun, or something... Wasn't intended in that way.
I should sleep as am waffling and only have 4hrs of possible REM as it is, eek!

morethanpotatoprints · 22/07/2013 00:59

Lion

If your friend can manage without an income why shouldn't she be a sahm. Tax credits decrease according to household income, as it should. Depending on her dh income he may not be entitled to much top up anyway. I doubt very much if their award would come anywhere near to replacing her salary. So they are likely to not be much better off than when paying childcare.
I really don't see what they are doing wrong. Her dh is obviously working and paying tax.

RonaldMcDonald · 22/07/2013 01:09

Lion

Like you I feel she should quit working if he and her husband can afford her to do so.
That means that he pays for the family and he affords her choice not to work.

Govt handouts to work shy should end

FasterStronger · 22/07/2013 07:24

But mrethan, you wages wouldn't always be completely taken up by child care, because the costs go down when children start school, become teenagers etc.

HappyMummyOfOne · 22/07/2013 07:52

Morethan, if you were a HRT then you could have easily covered the cost of childcare from your salary alone and had spare plus the extra of DHs SE income. Plus as a HRT pay there was more chance of promotion or pay rises so even breaking even for a year or two would have been worth it.

To believe there is nothing wrong in quittng work, claiming benefits and then going on to have more children is a very sad indication of society and is "entitled" attitude.

Thankfully many people are willing to work because if we all decided to be lazy and claim benefits as work seemed like a silly idea they would be no money in the pot for anything. Vital services are already on strict budgets and so the government need to get far stricted on those unwilling to work so that we do have the funds to pay for schools, hospitals and those truly unable to work due to disability.

IneedAsockamnesty · 22/07/2013 07:55

Lion, she's talking bollocks, rushing to get married my arse.

Tax credits do not require you to be married and they never have. To claim as a couple you only have to be a couple married or not.

And the dwp or hmrc do not pay people to have children. CTC when not paid with WTC replaced a portion of IS (that used to be paid via dwp) this was a set amount of money for each dependant household member child or adult referred to as the minimum amount the gov decided each person needed to live on. That amount was then added togather any money already coming in such as CB was then deducted as already recived and the rest was paid. Its generally understood that 3 people cost more to live than 1. Now the only difference is hmrc pay it.

IneedAsockamnesty · 22/07/2013 08:25

As this is a thread about benefits, can someone explain any key points about the Universal Credit that is coming in to play and give a heads up? I am a bit clueless and confused

Basicly with UC your household becomes a unit each unit is expected to generate amount of adults x 35 x nmw no matter how you do it or who does it.

If you don't then your household even if employed will be subject to the same penalties as a Jsa claimant (sanction work fair, conditionality work groups ect ect ) the hours change dependant on a few factors like carer status age of youngest child. You can be pulled out of your normal paid work shift to go and work for free at argos with 48 hours notice and if you don't then its sanction (first offence 3 months second offence 6-12 months third up to 3 years) carers even employed ones will have to present themselves to the dwp for meetings and can get sanctioned if there care responsibilities prevent them from doing so. If you get fired by your employer because you have been doesn't on work fair then sanction (but they have said they will try not to pull you out of paid employment but only try not to instead of actually won't)

A part time employee can be sanctioned for not quitting a guaranteed actual hours contract to take up a zero hours one.

Laughably a high earner could drop hours down to 1 and if the wages are enough to provide your unit with the required amount they don't care if its only 1 hour worked.

All your benefits (apart from a couple of disability related ones ) will be paid monthly in one lump sum payment (always paid in arrears first payment expected to be 4 weeks paid 6 weeks in arrears) they did intend to provide vulnerable families with more frequent payments but that's been taken off the table now.

More families will qualify but if you do qualify the same rules apply to all. The appeals system is being wound down and legal aid has now been removed for benefit tribunals. Oh and the it system intended to run it all does not work.

ParsingFancy · 22/07/2013 08:53

Yep, Sock. And IIUC, although not all disability benefits will be part of UC, many or most disabled people will be affected by it. Even when they've been found Not Fit to Work by the DWP, they will be sanctioned if they fail to generate an arbitrary fraction of the 35 x NMW, as decided by an individual JobCentre clerk.

The JobCentre clerk will not have access to the person's medical record, and couldn't understanding it anyway. They just get to invent a figure the person "should be earning".

janey68 · 22/07/2013 09:04

I find myself wondering whether morethanpotatoprints is for real. If she is, what a shockingly selfish, entitled attitude.

morethanpotatoprints · 22/07/2013 09:14

Happy

If you read the post, I was a hr payer before children, therefore I wouldn't have needed childcare.

janey

In that case the world is made of people with a selfish attitude and you should question how many people are for real. My dh is not the only person to claim tax credits.

janey68 · 22/07/2013 09:24

I didn't say he was morethan. It is your attitude to working and public funds which is shocking

JessicaBeatriceFletcher · 22/07/2013 09:26

morethan - for how many years were you a higher rate taxpayer and how many years have you not worked? Just out of interest.

FasterStronger · 22/07/2013 09:40

sock Basicly with UC your household becomes a unit each unit is expected to generate amount of adults x 35 x nmw no matter how you do it or who does it.

that sounds reasonable to me.

Laughably a high earner could drop hours down to 1 and if the wages are enough to provide your unit with the required amount they don't care if its only 1 hour worked.

but would that ever actually happen? I cannot think of any high paying 1 hour jobs per week.

ParsingFancy · 22/07/2013 10:15

Self-employed consultants, FasterStronger. And I think it's averaged, though can't remember the period.

Obviously 1 hr/wk is the extreme, but basically yes, people are going to be penalised for doing work with low hourly rates.

So morethan, if her DH works fulltime, may see little change under UC but eg Lioninthesun may lose out as she's a single parent (sorry, Lion, haven't read in enough depth to see what hours/rate you do).

ParsingFancy · 22/07/2013 10:19

But remember, this restructuring is to make things Fairer?.