"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.

No I wouldn't. Single council tax is about services, they are the only adult so don't consume as much.

As for childcare, chances are they wouldn't be able to work without it, so they'd be claiming more.

They won't be getting child benefit (or a cut down of this) due to income so there will still be losses.

Plus the tax paid on 60k is fairly substantial, so that's being paid back into the pit

No it does not depend on the definition of benefit. The list of benefits are the list of benefits. This is not a benefit. It is support for working parents.

This person is a working parent. They are entitled to support with childcare if they earn above and below a certain threshold. They do. So they received Childcare support. As do a huge number of others on this site. That support is not based on PT or FT hours. The question is - are you a working parent? Do you earn above X? Do you earn below Y? You get support wit childcare. Can you truly not see how bizarre this question is?

The whole extra 15 hours is a means of collecting more taxes as most people who use the extra 15hours need to be on a good salary as the extra hours doesn't cover the whole week/yr so you need to top up anyway.

Sounds very sensible. I did something similar. The reality is if you earn between £70-100k per annum - your job is all consuming, think no life, no work life balance. If you drop to £60k, you are still working seriously hard, just not expected to be on call 24/7 and in reality it makes very little difference to your actual income post tax and the fact you get back some of the allowances.

Work life balance is important and it is most definitely not benefit scrounging, whoever said that is just jealous that someone is in the position to still have a good job and have a life.

If they are on £60k or more, they won't be getting child benefit, so certainly not scrounging that one.

I wouldn't class them as a scrounger. They have and are paying in far more than they get out.

No, I don't see them as a scrounger that's ridiculous. They have had to take a step back in their career at a loss to themselves to balance the needs of the children.

@Thoughtlessinengland
Well, as I said, people with no recourse to public funds don't get this support with childcare, even if they qualify under the criteria.

Tbh its what they are entitled to so can't see issue.

People on low incomes can get funding from the age of 2

So?

This is a person who is legitimately resident in the UK and thus is entitled like all working parents resident in the UK around get help with childcare if they earn above X and below Y.

What is the issue?

@LellyMcKelly is right. Taking a £40k drop in salary (even after tax reduces it) is not offset by a bit of childcare help. The council tax discount applies to any single adult household so isn't relevant in the least.

So one would assume that the person has reduced their hours or changed job because the job they had was no longer suitable for their circumstances. It might have involved long hours, or an expectation of unplanned after hours socialising, or lots of travel, or any number of things that meant the person couldn't carry on.

But, why consider the possibility that the job was not 'family friendly' when you can accuse someone of being a 'benefits scrounger'?

Rough estimate of £3k a month after tax

It’s around £3,612, so a bit more.

If they previously earned over £100k they’ll have paid an effective tax rate of 62% on part of their income. Not nice.

It's true that who said it is probably intensely jealous (they are on the same 60K but full time, being less qualified).
I guess they see it as them both having the same number of children, getting same childcare support but for "her the benefit scrounger" the government pays to stay home with her children on two days a week.
I am just trying to understand the logic / argument.

I am intrigued as you mention you will have to manage the disagreement - why? In what context?

Say for example you are the parent and A says to B "you shouldn't have cut your hours to benefit from free childcare" if you want to get involved you just tell A to button it as it is none of their business surely? If they are two friends of yours - same - nobody's business.

If you are a manager in the workplace the same applies only with more politeness and the warning that going on about B's circumstances could lead to an accusation of workplace bullying.

Not scrounging IMO.

And PS do please consult the advice - the basic 15 hours is available to anyone even this with NRPF where it clearly states -

“ In England, all children of age three and four are entitled to 570 hours of free childcare or early education each year, which must be taken over at least 38 weeks, for example, 15 hours per week for 38 weeks of the year. This can be provided to children in households where the parent or parents have no recourse to public funds (NRPF). Government funded childcare is not a 'public fund' for immigration purposes, so a parent with NRPF is not prevented from applying for this due to having the NRPF condition and there are no eligibility requirements related to the parent's immigration status.“

1. A working parent
2. Resident and paying taxes in the UK
3. Earning above X
4. Earning below Y
5. Gets support with childcare
6. In a state approved scheme
7. Which is targeted particularly to this demographic
8. And not dependent on hours of work.

In other words a scenario which describes the vast majority of taxpayinf working parents on this site and elsewhere.

What on earth is in question here?

@Thoughtlessinengland
But that's the point. Not all legally resident parents are entitled to this childcare help. People with non eu citizenship mainly aren't, for example. The bar is on the grounds that they have to be self-sufficient without any recourse to public funds. But this is nit picking, of course.

I think people see that someone is earning say £50 to £60k a year and think "Jesus they must take home loads". When you factor in a decent pension contribution (admittedly taken before tax) and tax and NI, what you take home is not as much as people would think.

The question also assumes that everyone has a duty to maximise their income and work a 'full' week. Many many people dont. It raises questions such as whether a professionally qualified person, say a lawyer, has a duty to go and work as a lawyer, full time regardless of the effect on their health or family. Or whether they are perfectly entitled to make a decision to drop hours or go and work in a less well paid job, perhaps school hours/own business to maximise time with family and/or lower stress, for example.

I'd say here the issue for the critic is that this person's a single parent. I'm also guessing that they wouldnt say that a person in a marriage who only worked part time to minimise use of childcare, or who didnt woh at all and transferred the spousal tax allowance was a 'benefit scrounger'

This critic sounds like a right nobber.

From what you have said in your subsequent posts I’m presuming you are the manager of the two people who are disagreeing. So the only unreasonable part would be if you have allowed one person to reduce their hours knowing that it would either adversely impact on the business or be detrimental to other employees.
Millions of people work part-time (or give up work altogether) so that they can care for their children, and I’m sure they all do the sums before they do this, so I’m failing to see how this situation is different.

Hi.

I am a non EU passport holder. An Asian passport.

I am legally resident in the UK.

I am a higher rate taxpayer.

I am not definitely entitled to the funds hours. And the tax free childcare

I claim both.

I could technically work a better job. I could use my PhD working in Microsoft. I instead work FT in academia. I could earn shit loads more. I am underemployed.

My colleague works PT in same circumstances. He too is entitled to just the same. He too claims just the same.

There is still no point at all to this “debate”. It’s a bit like the government saying Here’s a scheme for X demographic. And someone saying - ooh look this person from X demographic who the scheme applies to is a benefit scrounger.

Not one single person on this thread has said otherwise.

Not definitely? AM definitely. For fucks sake!

Nope I'm sure they've paid their fair share of taxes

@Winter2020
I am co-managing one of the parties to this conflict (but obviously not asking for help with HR / workplace issues on mumsnet).
I am working reduced hours myself (no one probably recognises it as I am still answering emails and taking calls on my days off) and therefore it probably hit a nerve.

What a horrible phrase.