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.

I think I am well off on what we are on, thats why I feel very lucky getting some child care help, but it depends if you are the type that wants a lot of material things.

The salary you get is good but I to me if you were doing half the hours you do on that salary then you would be well off.

I am probably the least materialistic person you would meet. I do not like the assumption based on no circumstantial information that if you earn more you must be splashing the cash on material goods. Ignorance at it's best.

If I was well off I wouldn't be spending a hot weekend in doors painting - I would be paying someone else to do it!

i have seen posts about net tax contributions: the calculation is not:

NTC = the tax my household pays - the benefits we get

we all need to pay our share of all the vital services e.g. NHS and education (whether we need it now or not).

and statisticians say the average single person needs to earn around £26,000 per year (and received no benefits) to contribute enough tax to pay for their share of the cost of running the UK.

so an average couple need to earn £52,000 per year (and received no benefits) to pay for their share of the costs if running the UK.

this is why people choosing not to work and claim benefits is so terribly bad.

I dont get 30k myself I mean between the two. I think wr just have very different definitions of well off. Your well off would be my very rich

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there two main reasons it's possible for a household to claim tax credits even if their combined hours are less than full time?

One being recognition that for families childcare can be juggled between two parents where one works fewer hours, whereas having both work would cost the state more in childcare contribution than it does in benefits.

Second being that there simply aren't enough full-time jobs to go around - a situation that's getting steadily worse with 0-hour contracts.

Hmm. Well I contribute more than double what I need to, so someone can rest easy. TBH I'm not convinced that lots of people choose not to work, only a small minority - possibly those for whose family has not experienced full time employment for two or more generations.

Sorry, to be clear I meant families choosing not to work at all in favour of staying on benefits.

You feel well off because you each earn 15k and only start paying tax at 11k thereabouts so out of your combined income only 8k of that is taxable at the lowest rate and then any NI contributions on top. So not alot of that 30k is taken away in tax and NI which is why you feel well off.

You are not doing anything wrong, that is just the way the tax system works. But if you had one income of 30 or 35 k - 19 to 24 k of that would be taxable, some at 20% andsome at the 40% tax rate. Then NI too.

Families are better off having 2 lower earners than one higher earner. For instance my dhs best friend are both in the 30k braket, they pay less tax and keep their child benefit even with a household income of 60k. Now they are well off - 4 bedroom giant house in a very nice area in the 500k bracket, just done their kitchen for 20k, been to disney land paris this year and off on a sunny holiday in august! I have house envy going in their house!

I dont know where you are getting that from peanutbutterhmm but according to takehome calculator a person on 30k would take home 1934 and we take home 1800 as we pay childcare, so single earners are usually better off as no childcare costs.

2 people earning 30k each, take home 46k between them.
1 person earning 60k takes home 41k.

Yeah but they would usually be paying massive childcare bills so will be worse off.

I don't disagree. and the cost of getting to work on the train came be thousands per year.

Why is it that on these threads someone always has to ask if the poor people spend their money on the children?

They never ask it about people who are not poor

But you have calculated childcare costs out of yours. What would it be without childcare? Even if you have childcare costs, you cannot calculate yours to include childcare and the other not as that is not an accurate comparison.

Not everyone has childcare costs, especially when the children get older. There are also alot of people out there with a higher earned where the other cannot go out to work because what they earn will go on the childcare.

Fasterstronger so the two lower earners take home 5k more and keep child benefit.

You seem to want a lot peanutbuttermmm talking of 500k houses and whatever. I think that is why you feel unsatisfied with your lot.

Its 2030 without childcare a single earner gets 1934. Not a massive difference when you think of work costs you have to pay.

My second job I havent calculated in yet as I am 20% taxed on that and make 19 quid for every 4 hours work.

I think you might want to read a few pages back - you will read I am not unsatisfied nor materialistic. I am a make do and mend person, do not see the need for lots of "stuff". I can go into a house and think it is very nice - it is not something I would strive for personally.

A person on 30k has 19k of that which is taxable thereabouts. Two people on 15k each has 8k of their salary taxable. Go higher as a single person and it gets into the 40% tax bracket.

Jeez I am not having a go at you or saying you are doing wrong. I am just saying you feel well off, even with your childcare, because your household income doesn't require as much tax taken from it.

I only make 100 quid more a month though?

In fact if you could point to where it says I am unsatisfied with my lot? I have not said once that I do not like what I have and haven't said I should be entitled to anything - go fact I have said the opposite - people who are on lower hourly rates and minimum wage should be getting help and not part time sue on 12 quid an hour.

Read my early comments, they controdict the picture you want to make of me.

It was just from your comments saying you dont feel well off, and imagine the struggle of getting no help. I would just say you are in a very priviledged position, as am I.

100 quid a month would pay alot of council tax

It wouldnt really though as I know of no workers that dont use either childcare, work clothes, transport to work etc?

It does come to something when you are considered well off and out of the ordinary when you pay the basic living bills yourself. That means rent/morgage/bills/council tax/food rather me talking about holidays and gadgets btw.

Most people have some gadgets/holidays on most incomes nowadays as they are quite cheap. I got my kindle for 40 quid for instance.

Peanut - that's because the cost of living in this country is now so far out of sync with the average wage that most people (75% or thereabouts) receive benefits of some sort or another to get by. If you're in the top 25% that don't, you are well off by comparison. Many people cannot even afford a cramped roof over their head in the shittiest part of town without HB for example, despite working full time. That's just not right.

I think that we should scrap the distinction between assessing tax on individuals and benefits on households. Both should be either/or.