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 ask if most of you realise the tax credits cuts affect people who work, not the unemployed?

370 replies

ssd · 03/08/2015 10:41

yes, that's right, people who work get tax credits, you must work to get them

the cuts affect people in work, not people who dont work

I'm fed up reading here about the lazy unemployed who will get their tax credits cut...err no they wont.

OP posts:
RedDaisyRed · 03/08/2015 22:44

Yes, perfectly aware. This is what we all voted for and we are pleased.

Prelude · 03/08/2015 22:48

£250 per week is more than my friend gets for two disabled children who qualify for the tax credit premiums.

Does she have lots of DC?

Prelude · 03/08/2015 22:51

And yes, S.E people who are claiming to earn less than they do are breaking the law if it means they are not paying tax due or falsely claiming a lower income for tax credits.

Plenty of tax evaders about in all income brackets.

CrystalCove · 03/08/2015 22:57

What do you mean you are pleased red daisy? Are you aware that people might be forced to give jobs up and go on benefits?

tabulahrasa · 03/08/2015 23:03

"To me this is abuse as its getting tax credit when the earnings exceed the limits ."

Well yes, because they're commuting fraud, it's not a loophole - it's just illegal.

Duck90 · 03/08/2015 23:04

In my area, £80 housing benefit (for a council tenancy) , £75 income support, £64 ctc (one child) and £20.50 child benefit per week. Minimal council tax for these circumstances. Which is a reasonable income.

I realise this does not include people who work or are renting privately - I do sympathise hugely in this situation.

Lurkedforever1 · 03/08/2015 23:20

Problem is though duck if they aren't in social housing, but a private landlord they could well be paying a decent chunk of that to top up the difference between housing benefit and rent. And I don't mean someone whose stupidly chose an expensive property whilst on benefits, if you lose your job the only way to get rehoused would be either with a deposit and finding a landlord with a cheap property who doesn't have dumb ideas about housing benefit, so highly unlikely. Or getting evicted to be officially homeless and get social housing. Not forgetting in many areas people are paying high private rental for the same type of property as social housing. So not everyone is getting that. Nor does it take into account if you live in a town with a range of cheap shops in walking distance, it goes a lot further than if you live in the arse end of beyond.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 03/08/2015 23:22

"Doled out so lavishly"

"We are pleased, it's what we voted for"

What did you economise on this week?

NewLife4Me · 04/08/2015 00:10

Prelude

If you take a lower income as a se / business you aren't breaking any laws. You can pay yourself anything you like.
If you declare a lower income than you receive then you are breaking the law.
s/e or employed the income is the same.

AndNowItsSeven · 04/08/2015 00:13

Sleeping bunnies, on 35k I would be grateful, not irratated.

AndNowItsSeven · 04/08/2015 00:14

Ahh irritated.

HarrietSchulenberg · 04/08/2015 00:15

How lovely for you, Reddaisy to have achieved what you voted for.
I wonder if you'll be so fucking smug when you realise that your school has no decent TAs because we're all leaving in search of higher paid jobs, and your kids are left with underqualified staff as that's all schools will be able to recruit?
Yes, you'll be on here moaning and wondering where all the well-educated ones went.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 04/08/2015 00:19

umber of hours they can work without losing their CA - they are allowed to earn £106 a week, anything over that and you lose the whole lot. The jump between £106 and the approx £170 you'd need to earn to break even is often the difference between being able to do the job.
But you still have to do the caring 24/7.
That's why there should be a sliding scale for the loss of carer's allowance

No there is no hour limit but 16 hours at NMW equates to just below the limit.
It's not true that you lose the lot after you reach the limit as you are allowed to have certain things from your income not taken into account like if you have childcare costs, pension,essential work related things if after those deductions are taken off you are over the limit then yes you do lose it.

To be entitled to CA you have to be caring for a certain amount of hours (35) someone who cares for 35 hours gets the same amount as someone who does 135

VelmaD · 04/08/2015 00:21

im a lp with 2 children, working 25 hours and studying for a degree at the same time (am half way through so another 3 years to go)

i will lose around £1400 a year i wtc

my question is though, i currently get £45 of my rent paid through hb. if my income drops by say £30 a week, would my hb then go up by that amount, seeing as they use my income to decide what i can afford to pay weekly on my rent?

also, if i lose wtc, would i therefore be entitled to free school meals? (which means pupil premium allocation for my kids in school which isnt a bad thing )

Viviennemary · 04/08/2015 01:00

Years ago there was no such thing as teaching assistants. So I hardly think the country will collapse if they all go to better paid jobs. Good luck to them .

CluckingBelle · 04/08/2015 01:08

*"Doled out so lavishly"

"We are pleased, it's what we voted for"

What did you economise on this week?*

Empathy or compassion?

NeedsAsockamnesty · 04/08/2015 01:15

How many years are we talking vivenne

VelmaD · 04/08/2015 01:16

Really Vivienne? I remember teaching assistants 25 years ago.

I can't honestly believe someone would happily rid education of low paid TAs though. I can only presume you pay for private education.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 04/08/2015 01:21

velma they still use teaching assistants in private school and they are not paid much more than they are in state school.

Prelude · 04/08/2015 01:24

NewLife, yes, that's what I meant, badly expressed, sorry.

RedDaisy won't be too bothered about teaching assistants after paying five sets of private school fees. Her income has assured the future of her children and her vote will ensure that they don't have to compete with bright children who have been less privileged.

VelmaD · 04/08/2015 01:29

Needsasock - round here private schools are 11-12 to a class though, so any staff additional to the teacher is disposable and doesn't count I guess.

TA salaries are notoriously low. Especially for the HLTAs who could basically be teaching your child. But hey, let's look down our noses at them with their low paid jobs Hmm

Sorry, that's a rant for a whole other thread.

Prelude · 04/08/2015 01:35

My mate is a HLTA. Her salary is shocking given that she was an excellent class teacher / literacy coordinator for thirty years, but her life is her own now.

Prelude · 04/08/2015 01:44

She is extremely valuable, but can only afford to do that work because she is mortgage and (now) child-free.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 04/08/2015 01:46

2 of my children are in classes with no more than 9 and each class still has at least 1 TA in it.

1 of my kids is in a class with 4 kids 1 teacher and 3 TA's and yes all the TA's make a huge difference that's why they are there.

It's not just the TA's it's the health care assistants,family support workers, retail staff, shit loads of front line staff for essential services the very same services that are there to deal with the after effects of the race to the bottom

jellybeans · 04/08/2015 01:49

How can anyone be pleased that families will lose money? Dual working family on Min wage will lose £1000+. Lone parents on min wage lose £1000+.horrible society

Swipe left for the next trending thread