"Benefit scrounger" or not?

[SympatheticSwan]

Asking out of interest, to settle an offline debate. Would you consider the below to be ethical or not (i.e. along the lines of "benefit scrounging").
Someone who used to earn in excess of £100K and had now dramatically cut back working hours, resulting in the total salary of around £60K. Claims 30 free childcare hours and tax free childcare allowance (not available on incomes over £100K), as well as the single person council tax discount.

None of that is "benefits" in the benefit scrounge sense.

Everyone under 100k is able to claim the 30hours. Everyone who meets the criteria can use the tax free childcare. Everyone living in a one adult house can claim the single person discount for council tax.

It is not about me, just a discussion I participated in.

No.

And single person discount is not a benefit. You get 25% off because there is only ONE adult using the services 🙄

I haven't read all the replies, but are you seriously asking if someone paying tax on a 60k income, having formerly paid it on a 100k income, should be able to then benefit from those tax payments????

Just asking.

If they are following the rules set down by the Government and not lying about anything then how can they be a scrounger? By claiming what the authorities say they are entitled to?

Plenty of people cut down their hours to reduce childcare costs (and see more of their kids). None of what this person has done is illegal or scrounging and sounds like a sensible decision for that family. Whoever said otherwise is being silly.

£60k isn’t that much to act like you have money to burn

What a load of rubbish.

I'm trying to live on £317 per month, Universal Credit. I'm currently unemployed, due to redundancy. Not just me, the whole company. Everyone. I have worked since I was 16, paid into a pension, of various sorts, for most of that. Because of my age and the ever increasing age of retirement, I am finding it increasingly difficult to find full time employment, so I apologise to you taxpayer people, but thank you also, for supporting me x

Nope and whoever said it is is a dick

Same here, I have £240 a month. I'm older and get turned down for jobs all the time,

I guess it is more about that they chose to be "underemployed" with the expenses that they previously were meeting out of their pockets are now paid by the state. I.e. the ethical component, I do realise that they are not in breach of any laws.

Another point of view is that if someone is working fewer hours but the work still needs to be done then it gives employment to someone else so they in turn don't have to depend on state assistance.

They are not benefits . There is no discussion therefore ?

No, they should take what they're entitled to. They'll be paying plenty of tax into the system and will continue to do so long after the free childcare hours have stopped. They are there to make sure people do stay in work.

What the fuck? We can say X Y or Z are all choosing to be underemployed by not working X more hours, in Y field, or using their degrees better of whatever. If you earn a certain amount of money under a certain threshold you qualify for help with childcare. Period. No ifs no buts. How is this even a conversation? The circumstances are pretty much what hundreds of Mumsnetters potentially have. We are entitled to funded childcare hours as we both earn less than the threshold but comfortably high salaries for our needs. But sure we could have better jobs or whatever and we could be underemployed (although having a PhD and being a university academic is fairly standard I’d argue - but sure I could work in industry, and earn shit loads more - I could be considered underemployed).

This is bat shit crazy.

And hey OP you seem a bit confused. Here is the full list of “benefits” in the UK www.caba.org.uk/help-and-guides/information/understanding-benefits-uk-basics-explained

As you will note help with childcare is not a benefit. It’s something made available for working parents with various caps to various earnings under a particular threshold. It’s got nada to do with the benefits system.

Clear your own confusions first.

Someone earning £60k is not choosing to be 'unemployed'. That's ridiculous. They're also not scrounging.

You can't win when people are desperate to accuse you of 'scrounging' for only earning £60k, being single and claiming free childcare hours/tax free childcare.

@CakeandCustard28
Me neither

Sounds very sensible to me. No doubt they will have a long career before retirement. They are making a sound decision. As are those who work fewer hours and get some benefits in lower paid jobs.

30 free childcare hours and tax free childcare allowance wouldn’t amount to any more that £8k-£9k per annum. Why would you give up £40k(say £25k after tax) in order to get £8k worth of benefits? Regardless, the taxes on their £60k will cover everything anyway. They’re not scroungers at all. People like that contribute to the system.

Everyone I know who is SE & earns over 100k fudges it to get the free hours. If I was offered a pay rise it would need to be quite a bit over 100k as opposed to 105k to make it worth while.

Anyone using the word scrounger loses the debate in my eyes.

@Thoughtlessinengland
I guess it depends on the definition of "benefit". They are definitely "public funds", people with no recourse to public funds cannot claim them.
I am not neither the accuser nor the victim in this case. Just a conflict (which I unfortunately will have to manage, but I am able to deal with it). I was just curious about the general public perception.

Most importantly help with childcare is not a benefit.

Op you are seriously confused and have ended up making a post which appears sillier each second

No, they are simply claiming what anyone else can claim