WIBU for dh to take a big pay cut and for us to claim more tax credits?

[balenciaga]

I was going to nc for this as I think I'm gona be told we are being v v U. But fuck it am on my phone and can't nc on it and CBA to put laptop on to do it

Anyway. Dh has a new job. It's 32k, on that, we get 48 a week tcs with 3 dc (believe it or not that's ok money where we are)

However dh hates his new job, it's stupidly long hours and very stressful with no sign of letting up. I know it sounds pathetic but he has been in tears over it. we have a new (ish) born baby as well and he's never bloody here. And when he is, he is a tired mess and no good to any of us. He has a contact that has offered him a job working for him but it's only 20k

However it's a huge drop. And we initially thought he can't possibly take it as we would be skint. But then we did a calculation on hmrc site and worked out that if he took the new job we could claim higher tcs which would take us up to around a similar income, a bit less but not much

New job dh could do with his eyes closed and it's much less hours and easier work. So he will have a better work life balance and not be making himself Poorly with stress

But the idea of claiming more tcs doesn't sit right with me, and I also worry that soon they'll be put a stop to anyway

So I'm putting this to the mn jury...ps: fwiw I will be going back to work in a few months so we would not claim them long term

Those of us that can afford to be self-sufficient, should be...the rest should claim their entitlements (which should be as low as possible to incentivise work).
And those with disabilities and unable to work, should that be as low as possible too?

Morally abhorrent - seriously? Being a paedophile and abusing children is morally abhorrent.

Don't be ridiculous, they're not morally abhorrent and they're illegal.

So shockinglybadteacher (does your user name explain you views ) what would happen if everyone on £32k with 3 kids worked out they could maintain their income by doing a £20k job because the state will step in?

racmun Different people react differently to stressful situations, I'm sorry your dh hates his job, but he is perhaps differently equipped and therefore more able to deal with stress than the OPs dh. We cannot judge everybody by our own abilities.

A person making themselves ill from stress is a greater expense to the state than a few thousand pounds worth of tax credits.

Nah, my username is because I signed up to discuss an education issue which was getting talked about on Facebook :) I was a teacher, but I'm not one now, and I earn a fair bit less than £20k.

I'm a bit confused by the idea that paedophilia isn't morally abhorrent. Abhorrent is a strong term indeed. I would suggest that it does apply to paedophiles who abuse children and doesn't apply to people whose husbands want a less stressful job.

I think most people on £32k with 3 kids are happy where they are and don't want to drop to a £20k job. The OP's husband has a different problem - he's really unhappy in the job he's in and the stress is outweighing the benefits.

It's not like your job has to be a punishment. Plenty of people on that amount of money are quite fine where they are. OP's husband isn't. He is struggling in the role and if he takes a easier job to relax from the stress and OP goes back to work, I'm not seeing the problem here. If they have to rely on tax credits for a bit, they're both going to work pretty soon.

I hope all you "this is morally abhorrent" people refuse all benefits which come your way. And I mean ALL. If you don't, you hardly have the moral high ground from which to lecture the OP.

I said paedophiles wasn't morally abhorrent.

Do you know what abhorrent actually means?

Yes it's a strong term but it is more than 'morally dubious' to deliberately opt for a state funded top up on your salary when you have options

OP I think your DH should look at how he can cope better with the stress

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/Pages/reduce-stress.aspx

running away from it wont help him cope next time life is stressful. and it will be. and unless his job is a life and death job, it is only work stress.

people do cope with much worse in this world. he can deal with this with the right support and help.

Has noone

Op I have suffered from work related stress which caused a lot of anxiety. It was in part caused by my job for sure- and once I moved I was much healthier and happier. It isn't manning up, it's protecting his mental health. Could he see the GP to talk about work stress/the toll it's having on him? I was signed off for a month and a half (at medical advice).

Yes, and I also think "paedophiles" is a plural and that paedophiles exist in the present. So it's not "paedophiles wasn't morally abhorrent" but "paedophiles aren't morally abhorrent". If we're getting nitpicky, that might be something you'd like to bear in mind.

Abhorrent means something like "an object of disgust". It's something that disgusts and revolts people. I think paedophilia disgusts and revolts most people, morally (it is wrong to abuse a child, it is disgusting that a child's innocence should be taken advantage of, etc). I would be amazed if someone taking a lower paid job and topping up with tax credits because they were having huge difficulties dealing with stress actually disgusted and revolted most people. YMMV, of course.

Oh FFS

I hope poor balenciaga has hidden the thread

ODFO shockingly it was supposed to say 'paedophilia' but my computer autocorrected. Hardly the point of the thread is it? But you clearly feel superior by pointing it out.

YANBU

Some people don't claim it even though they are legally entitled to do so.

They won't get any special recognition for it - apart from being able to act superior on some forum

Stupid phone. Sorry.

has noone heard the phrase 'promoted to the level of their incompetence'? Yes the dh did manage to get a 32k job but that doesn't mean he is able to do it or should find another one similar as he cannot cope. I don't mean any disrespect in that, simply in that he might be able to get it but maybe he is out of his depth.

my father was a mid level civil servant, would currently earn around 32k, but he got medically retired with stress on a full pension twenty years ago and hasn't had to work since- this dh is not talking about stopping work, just moving to a level he can manage without the effect on his mental health potentially becoming an even bigger burden on the state.

fwiw, no i have never claimed benefits, don't vote labour, and
am happy for my taxes to go to the op under the circumstances. I have a very stressed and hard working dh on a much higher salary- he only keeps going because there is light at the end of the tunnel and if he makes it to the top he can sit back in comfort. I suffer from anxiety myself and think people really don't understand the effect of mental health issues- this one is avoidable.

I think it was mentioned that the OP's DH works 60 hours pw,the equivalent of a full time job plus a second part time job for the 32k.

Does that mean that every worker claiming TC for working a full time 37 hour week is therefore now somehow immoral for not getting a second job ?

Like I said previously,why shouldn't then everyone who uses any services funded by the state be morally obliged to get a second job to pay for health care etc instead of expecting to state to fund there choice of "only" working 37 hours a week ?

Bearbehind, continue not answering my point. It's amusing. And if you can't prevent yourself from making typos, don't start with the "Do you even UNDERSTAND the word" nonsense. Internet 101.

I haven't answered your point as it's not clear what your point is, unless it's whether I accept any benefits, which I have answered previously on this thread if you bothered to read it.

It really is the height of twattish behaviour to focus on typos and if you are going to quote me, at least get it right- I didn't even use the word 'understand' let alone shout it in capitals.

This is totally derailing this thread so give it up.

This is someone's life you know, does it have to be reduced to this pointless arguing about a bit of grammar?

Quit with the point scoring, it's pathetic & cruel.

One observation: when someone refers to the OP as 'she' rather than as 'you' then you know you are going off on one and derailing the thread.

Yes, the usefulness of this to op has long last, hopefully they've gone to do whatever is best for their family.

there is a lot of sentiment along the lines of 'do whatever is best for your family.'

do the same posters think that legal means of minimising tax as similarly ok? people are entitled to use them as much as someone can choose WTC.

personally I disagree with both routes.

And i do think shockingly had a point, re an obligation to stay in a better paid job- where do you draw the line? If my dh decided to jack in his well paid job and get one for 30k in order to reduce stress and seee his family, i doubt he would be flamed,as no benefits involved. But he would be paying around 30k less into the public purse as a consequence - much more than the effect of this op. Are weall obliged to earn the maximum potential, or only up to a certain level?

But in that example bedraggled your husband wouldn't cost the state any more in benefits and the loss of tax revenue from his higher paid job would be replaced by the revenue from the person taking over from him.

In the OP's example, they would cost the state more due to the TC's.

Yes, legal tax avoidance is fine to me, not that I do it. Most people take what they're entitled to. Personally I am terribly virtuous, as I've never claimed benefits, pay huge amounts of tax and have had no maternity leaves but you can never say that things won't change, none of us knows what is round the corner and everyone optimises their own position when hard up. If you're not doing that then you are getting a psychological pay off that outweighs whatever you're not claiming.