To wonder why people in receipt of Working Tax Credits are considered in the same vein as "benefit scroungers"

[shrunkenhead]

I was under the impression that those people in receipt of WTCs DO work (hence the name) but are poorly paid so the government bump it up with these credits so they can afford to live. So you have to work to claim them.... However lately I have heard several people say they are glad the government are slashing these benefits and talk of them along similar lines to JSA/DLA etc etc generally benefit bashing "just get a job" etc etc.
So, am I missing something? Have I got it all wrong? I thought WTCs were all about "making work pay"....?

Good point FlowerBomber.

Well exactly are people who work in shops or wherever just lazy with no ambition

There should be no need for WTC. A fair days work for a fair days pay should mean exactly that. Not a pittance you cAn top up. If you're going out to work full time and still can't live on your wages alone. Then there is something wrong
Yes I know they Are raising the NMW to £9PH in 2020 but that's not much use to people in 2015 is it.

Removing child benefit from high earners IMO has caused even more benefits bashing. When everyone got it, fine. Now, those who still receive it can be bashed under the useful banner "don't have kids if you can't afford them".

Yeah you are right its the divide thing everybody got CB regardless

Agree 100% Flower

I'm in two minds about this. I'm a single parent (with a very involved dad though) of two young children, one who's not at school till next year. I work as a nurse 23h per week and get topped up with working tax/ child tax credits.

At the moment I can't actually work full time as work can't give me more than two 'set' shifts a week and nursery can't offer a moving day place as my shifts change but my plan was to go back full time next Sept when youngest is at school. Having looked into it a few weeks ago, when I top my hours up to 37.5/ week, I'll end up about £150 a month better off. Which is pittance, frankly, for 5 extra 12.5h shifts. Especially when I'll be paying out more in breakfast/ after school club and extortionate hospital car parking. So am unlikely to actually see much of an increase at all.

I agree in a lot of cases it doesn't make financial sense to work full time and therefore people stay part time and get topped up. The only reason I will do so is that I have a pension I want to pay more into and I have a career I want to progress in. If I worked in a shop or something, why would I bother doing all that extra work?

And yet, I know if the girls' father stopped paying maintenance, I'd be pretty badly off. I'd survive, but surviving's about all I'd do, it's the money I get from him that pays for all the 'luxuries' like occasional cinema trips/ presents at Christmas, few days out this summer etc. So I don't think lowering tax credit amounts is really the answer either. Maybe a better sliding scale of these benefits for as you earn more?

Op it's the first 2 children from 2017. Any children born before them can be claimed for

It is important that this is clarified. The new rules are stating that children born after 2017 can't be claimed for, that much is true. However, there is an additional qualifier for children born prior to April 2017 which is that they need to have been on an existing claim for 6 months at the point of the changeover - this is therefore offering existing claimants some protection (and only until there is a change in their circumstances - the parameters of those changes have not yet, I don't think, been defined) but it is very clearly saying that if you have 3 or more children and fall on hard times after April 2017, you will only be able to claim for 2 of them.

This needs highlighting again and again so people realise that should they lose their jobs, have a husband walk out, get run over by a bus or be diagnosed with cancer or other illness that prevents them from working, they are not protected just because they already have 3 children.

Thats scary fedup.

I predict a massive baby boom at the end of 2016!

Nobody should be bashing anyone unless they know all the details.
However in my mind there isn't a general difference between tax credits and jsa. A single parent who said they weren't intending to work till their child was older ( whether 5 or 15) is usually labelled a scrounger. Whereas the sahp with the same outlook, whose partner earns a low wage and gets top ups is considered respectable, when in effect it's no different. Especially if in the second scenario they have more than 1dc and could easily be receiving as much in top ups as the single parent to one child who doesn't work. Likewise being in the situation you are a low income family through no fault of your own, isn't any morally superior to being unemployed or a single parent to a preschooler through no fault of your own. It's socially acceptable to say you aren't doing the extra hours or as part of a couple getting a job because you'd be no better off, but socially unacceptable to say the same about remaining on income support etc.
I don't think we should be judging either unless you know every detail, but one is no different to the other in terms of not being able to support you/ your family independently.

respectable??

What year is this?

I'm an LP of one and I cant find any childcare at all so I cant take on more hours because DD at 8 is still too young to be responsible for herself.

I completely agree with livinginalighthousewithaghost. And whats £9 per hour even going to be worth in five year's time.....? Prob the same as £7.20 in 2015!

"However in my mind there isn't a general difference between tax credits and jsa."

Except tax credits are currently paid to families where both parents work fulltime at NMW.

But morally it's the same tabula. Only being able to work nmw jobs, for whatever reason isn't any better or worse than not being able to get a job. I don't subscribe at all its every individuals fault they can at that time only work nmw jobs but neither do I subscribe to the idea that every individual who can't find a job is at fault either. Being either genuine or milking the system shouldn't come down to which benefits you claim.
However I view the benefits system like the nhs or state education, some people need to use/ cost them more than others.

Lurked - fair enough, that wasn't how I read the rest of your post.

As your Op confirms most people, even if benefit recipients, do not understand who is entitled to what and in which circumstances. Journalists certainly do not and seem to be too lazy to report the impact of the changes properly. The Labour / SNP have been very slow off the mark in articulating the impact of the Budget on individuals. The IFS did a better job but this has not been widely discussed or dissected.

I think there is an issue in MN land where those in work, whether or not also in receipt of benefits, tend to view themselves differently from those not working for whatever reason. I think this might lead to a tendency for others to view all "benefits" as being the same, whether it be JSA / CTC or CB. There is evidence of this in the comments on the thread.

I think there is an issue with WTC suppressing wages and restricting worthwhile hours. There is also an issue with 2 people doing the same job but ending up being paid wildly different amounts because of WTC. However the changes in the budget actually exacerbate the problem by steepening the taper. They are also too severe and fast for the economy and individuals to adjust to and take no account of the safety nets which were removed or allowed to wither when they were introduced and which are not being reinstated.

Fedup change of circumstances after April 2017 will not affect claims for more than two children. Only new claims within a time frame of over six months months not on UC or TC will be affected.
If you have evidence of change of circumstances affecting claimants please link.

I'm pretty sure means testing cb was intended to build a divide between 'workers' and 'benefitscroungers'. I very much doubt they saved any substantial amount of money by cutting it for higher tax payers

I think it is because the Tories and right wing press have successfully convinced a big chunk of the population that being poor is something people choose to do. They put the responsibility away from the structure of society/inherent unfairness in the system to the people who need top ups being responsible.

Eg in this mindset, people in areas destroyed by mining closures being judged as 'choosing' to be in the situation of no local jobs. People working part time so they can also care for children can just work more hours. People doing low paid jobs should have tried harder etc. And the best one of all, women who have had children should have shut their legs or not had children they cannot afford (a very common comment on the Tories fb page).

If this mindset continues, how long until people who use the NHS more than others are deemed scroungers? Why should people pay for your children's education etc. Before the NHS, people did die because they could not afford treatment.

Did David Cameron really become well off through sheer hard work? Could someone from a very poor family in a sink comprehensive really have had an equal chance to become prime minister? That's the sort of logic that Tory philosophy would have us believe. Hence the poo.

If it is truly being a scrounger to accept tax payers money, then wasn't DC a scrounger as he claimed DLA, George Osborne claimed Child Benefit, MP expenses, IDS breakfast etc. Why is it only poor people that are judged so harshly?

Tax Credits are not perfect. Our family is one earner middle but below high tax income. Yet people earning much less get about the same because they get topped up & housing benefit etc. However, I would rather this than people earning less not having enough to live on. Better to drag everyone up to a decent standard of living than drag people down.

Labour always knew that tax credits may dissuade second earners and full time work, but they thought that this was offset by having at least one in a couple working & that part time work was better than none at all.

Ha-ha have just noticed that what should have been 'hence the poor being blamed' says hence the poo

I was poor in the era before tax credits so know what it is like to really want/need more food clothes etc than finances allow for but I really don't like WTC. I feel that they can be manipulated too easily, are complex and after trying to claim / claiming them a few years ago are really a overly complex way of supporting people. I like the government raising the personal allowance as a means of enabling people to use the money they earn. It is more transparent.

'hence the poo' .

former yy to the 'baby boom'. I'd been pondering it too.