To think that tax credits and the like actually seem quite generous?

[MaliceInWonderland78]

My wife has recently given birth to DC3. She is currently on maternity leave. She works 30 hours a week for 19k per annum. Having checked things out on "entitled to.co.uk" it seems, were I to croak it, or do a runner, she'd be entitled to universal credit of approximately 200 per week. I'm not sure if this is correct though (it seems quite high).

If that is the case, how on earth are people needing food banks? I don't mean it to be patronising, I was just shocked that the figure was this high. As a tax payer, I'm hoping this is wrong. My calulations are as follows:

Wages - 300
Universal Credit - 200
Child benefit - 44

In addition to this, the council tax bill would be reduced from 160 pcm to approximately 45.

Is this peoples' real-world experience?

The motivation, is that I don't think our circumstances are THAT unusual. YOu here lots on hear about men not supporting their children - but I'm guessing that overall, they're in the minority. A significant minority, but a minority nonetheless.

Im not being goady, I'm just slightly incredulous that the benefit doesn't seem to go where its needed most.

I got my heres/hears the wrong way round. :-)

Not having to fund any childcare is pretty unusual.

I don't feel like they are generous at the moment.

I have just lost a baby and am not working ATM, I was due to start Uni in September but deferred as ds was due at Christmas. dd is one. Dp has had his hours cut drastically at work due to a client sadly passing away ( he is a carer on minimum wage)

But our credits have been halved as dp has lost the 30 hour element. They will not up the amount now because our income needed to have dropped by 2500 pounds a year. It has dropped by 2400 pounds. We were getting by before.

If I died tomorrow, the life insurances would pay out (which I suspect might have an effect).

If I left tomorrow (or she kicked me out) the benefits she'd be entitled to (in addition to what I'd have to pay) probably are more than she'd need.

I honestly don't mean this to be goady.

Where is it needed most malice *?

In the olden days it was assumed by the govt agencies that the father would pay a certain amount for his children. He very often didn't but the assumed amount was taken into the calculation for the amount a family sans parent needed to live on for benefits purposes.
That family relying on the father that didn't pay or that only paid after a protracted battle were then left in real poverty.

A better scheme was developed to allow families to live just above the breadline whether the father contributed or not. It wasn't a minority of men that didn't pay. It was a considerable number and the effects of their behaviour were appalling.
Also it took into account that relationships have changed. People have children and then move on into other relationship. They have children there too...their pot of money is only so large. Who gets what? Someone will have to go poor.

So wisely the govt decided that it wouldn't be the children.

Benefits don't amount to a lot. Try to enjoy the enviable situation you are in and wish others who have less all the best

*conservative talk bot

Conservative talk bot? Is that supposed to be some kind of slur?

It's not a situation I'm in (it's hypothitcal - at the moment!) I jsut can't believe that what we have is the best (or even the least worst) system.

What gives you reason to believe that?

your putting figures into a calculator wrongly?
your assumptions that your neighbours did quite well?
your situation v lots of other very different situations that are much worse?
You have considered this well, eh?

It sounds as though you might be better spending time learning a little bit about social policy/poverty/reality before making these sweeping statements.

My working tax credit has been cut from £200 per month to £68 per month this year for reasons best known to them. I am a single parent and earn 10K. My daughter is in university and XH doesn't pay a penny towards helping her. Yeah, so you could say the credit system is generous - not

It's not a situation I'm in (it's hypothitcal - at the moment!) I jsut can't believe that what we have is the best (or even the least worst) system.

But what is the alternative? As I have said in an earlier post; increased means testing is expensive to administer.
Do you have a proposed alternative that is not costly to administer and not likely to be full of flaws which could leave people in poverty whilst they go through appeals processes?
I remember the means testing that the CSA used to have (10 years or so ago), it took account of the non residents parents housing costs and essential travel costs and various other things but it was a terrible system that often resulted in in accurate calculations that took a long time to process. I wouldn't want to see something similar in our benefits system as some people will be left in dire poverty whilst various complex calculations go wrong time after time.

You're not being goady. Sure. And I'm Angelina Jolie.

Rainbow Congratulations on your wedding.

This is AIBU isn't it?

One thing this has thrown up is that the level of state assistnace varies. SOme seem comfortable. Others less so. I believe it warrants further investigation. I don't claim to have all of the answers, but as I've said, I don't think that our situation is THAT unusual.

I was talking to a single parent here (who gets very little from her child's father - though his parents help out a fair bit) and she said that the 125 pwe week top up she gets enables her to rent a 3 bed house and live a reasonably comfortable life. She works 20 hours a week (plus holiday cover) for 7 per hour.

I'm not saying that's great, but there will be others who get a similar amount who struggle to feed themselves. Her situation is probably even more typical than our hypothetical one.

And goading is goading anywhere.

But keep on, people seem to enjoy feeding it.

Well I am glad the hard working single parent you were talking to has a " comfortable life" .
Why are you still here op, don't you have enough quotes for your article?

Why don't you just give up work op and manage on tax credits and your wifes income and then see how comfortable life is? :)

Because my wife's income is only comfortable if you take account of the 185 per week I'd have to give her.

That's sort of (become) the point. She'd be entitled to State help, but without needing it (really). I'm surprised that doesn't seem to trouble many people.

Excellent suggestion fairylea

malice

you are suggesting returning to the very poor, in the literal sense, old days of including child support into calculations for benefits

this was shown to very negatively impact upon children whose father's refused to pay, whose circumstances changed and those who had variable work or incomes

as the csa is being phased out entirely as something that utterly didn't work there is simply no way of making a parent pay for a child they no longer live with
this sounds ridiculous but is horrible and true
why punish those children further by leaving them with nothing and a parent that wants nothing to do with them

the only workable solution is to try to ensure that those families who need to have their income topped up, can and do.

mothers receiving tax credits to keep them off the breadline has also allowed them to be a little more forgiving - in the past when they were chasing their exs over hill and dale for c/s they were very unlikely to allow them to see the children

your situation is fictitious.
the facts and the reality.

if you actually moved out you'd likely find within a year or two that you had moved on and the amount you could 'afford' was greatly reduced
you'd start to question helping out for uniforms or school trip like all the other fathers we read about daily on this site
you might miss a few payments, pay late...whatever suited you
you might have more children, lose your job or simply stop paying

i am not judging these men or their life choices but i am certainly not going to allow you to suggest that receiving tax credits should be based upon the perhaps of child support rather than the actual of benefits to ensure that the children in a household are being properly accounted for

keeping families out of complete poverty is the best way we can spend taxes imo

please forgive me for saying men but they are the vast majority that don't pay c/s
disclaimer: I work and receive good child support from my ex husband. I do not qualify for any benefits due to my earnings but do not begrudge any that ensure that women are not left in poverty due to men not paying child support

Having given the matter some thought, I actually think that the best way to tackle this, would be for each NRP to have their tax code adjusted so that they paid a flat nominal fee of say 25 per child per week. This money would be collected by and paid to the treasury- who could then use the money to increase benefits to single parents (through tax credits or some other way. That would give the RP a degree of certainty about actually getting the money, without making everybody else responsible.

The thing I'm struggling with is that a family income (post break-up) is very deoendent on the RP's (usually the mother) ability to select someone that can and will pay - as that income is disregarded in terms of what's available from tax credits. That to me doesn't quite seem right.

I would check those figures very carefully as tax credits can sometimes lull you into a false sense of getting the right payments. The shit hits the fan on renewal and that letter comes through the post with the shock of over payments leaving people in debt having to pay it back come April tax year. So sometimes not generous at all.

Malice

first of all as a society we are responsible for many things. Preventing child poverty seems like a decent starting place.
why chose this one thing as problematic? It will place many families into a terrible state and unfairly affect the lives of many children.

your idea is great, except what about the many nrps who don't work or who work and are on minimum wage or who work but now have such other pulls on their income that they cannot afford to lose this money
not to mention the many many 'self employed' workers who never seem to have to pay/declare a decent amount of tax

this will stop more people in these categories from working
this will also cost more to pull this money in and in set up and to wrangle with these men than will be actually gathered

it is not up to a woman to chose a man who can pay. it is up to the man to pay for his children
as the evidence overwhelmingly shows that men cannot be relied upon to do this then we, as a society, have to help out

Having given the matter some thought, I actually think that the best way to tackle this, would be for each NRP to have their tax code adjusted so that they paid a flat nominal fee of say 25 per child per week

You haven't given this much thought at all. What would you do about NRPs who don't work or NRPs who work cash in hand or NRPs who work abroad?

Exactly miss.

My ex lives in the USA. He moved there 2 years ago. He is from the UK but married an American woman. When he worked in the UK he got paid cash in hand, owned his own business and declared the income much lower than it actually was.

I am lucky that I continue to receive maintenance from him. Many in my situation would not. And if he ever decided to stop paying I would have no way of squeezing anything out of him at all.

The non-payers are in a minority I think. A significant minority, but a moinority nonetheless. I didn't say it was up to the woman to choose a man who can pay, but it is something that people should give thought to I suppose.

The cost of pulling the money in would be negligible. I can't believe that anyone thinks that the system we currently have is equitable.

I wonder to what extent some don't pay becasue they know thatthe State is there to support their kids.

Malice the numbers who don't pay or do not pay a significant enough amount are a lot higher than you think. My maintenance is done via csa and is on an attachment of earnings but until it is significantly overdue it won't get chased. Took 6 months last time to get the payments restarted and they are now just 4 months later late again. Maintenance is a big problem.