"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.

It seems they are claiming what they are entitled to, but it does seem wrong that someone earning £60k is entitled to taxpayers' help in the first place. As a taxpayer I'd like to think my taxes go to help people in actual need.

Scrounger is a loaded, inflammatory term and the person in question is doing nothing wrong and probably wants a bit of work/ life balance; they are taking advantage of a system that actively wants to give them something, or at least cut them some slack - foolish to turn it down.

However, I'd bet that a lot of people would be horrified that this is the amount you can earn and still claim these things.

And yes, £3500 a month is a lot, don't be silly.... only on MN.

Salary of 60k loses a lot to tax and other contributions. Take home is more like £43,000 and that’s not including any student loan payments. If a single parent, it’s not actually a huge amount to run a household on and pay childcare etc. A lot of families with two working parents on average wage would lose one wage to childcare costs, so you can easily take £15k off that.

I think "scrounger" means someone taking something they're not actually entitled to, or someone "working the system".
The person you mention seems to simply be applying for things they genuinely qualify for.

Take home only £43,000, that is awful, I'd never thought of it like that

No one in receipt of the benefits they are entitled to are scroungers.

This a very nasty thread.

I work FT (but I don’t earn anywhere near 100k or 60k) and I’m on my knees (I’m currently pregnant). I thinking that I will have to go back PT after I have DC #2 to avoid total burnout.

Maybe this person (especially as a single parent with pre-school children) is at this stage?

Hont1986
let me guess, you earn less so that means everybody else above you is "rich"

I dont think this is anything like "scrounging"(Hate that word anyway)! This person has merely reduced their hours for their own reasons .60 k always sounds an awful lot ,but by the time you have paid tax and childcare fees you are left with about half of that, for mortgage ,bills food and so on .The Single person CT rebate is not a benefit as such merely an acknowledgement that this is a single income household !

I've never earnt £60,000 but I'm fine with someone on that getting the 30 free hours childcare.
In London/SE you could be paying £2500 or more per month for 2 DC in nursery before the 30 free hours.

let me guess, you earn less so that means everybody else above you is "rich"

I wouldn't call it rich, but you are delusional if you don't think you can have a comfortable life anywhere in the country (outside of central London) on a take-home wage of £43k.

Scrounger is a loaded, inflammatory term and the person in question is doing nothing wrong and probably wants a bit of work/ life balance; they are taking advantage of a system that actively wants to give them something, or at least cut them some slack - foolish to turn it down

See, I'm a single parent who earns around £25k. If I needed to cut back for a bit of work/life balance, all sorts of accusations would be thrown my way. As it is, on this site at least, people are quite happy to challenge me for not earning more.

Paying less tax isn’t comparable to claiming benefits. The only benefit they are taking here is the 30 free hours. I suppose it’s ethically questionable to cut down deliberately to use this but it seems like they’ve taken a step back for personal and tax efficiency reasons which seems fair to me.

JosefKeller
let me guess, you earn less so that means everybody else above you is "rich"

Well, given that the average household in come is just short of £30k then yes, of course, earning a decent chunk over this is rich. Plus, someone on this salary will be have a decent pension too. So later in life too, they will be comparatively wealthy.

This is the gripe of the ft worker from the op. Although the pt worker is doing nothing legally wrong, they are getting benefits - that they are totally entitled too btw, she's not cheating the system and still goes home with decent pay.

Its not that the woman is a 'benefits scrounger' but it is a crazy system that allows for this when you've got other people living off very little having to choose between heat and food.

but you are delusional if you don't think you can have a comfortable life anywhere in the country (outside of central London) on a take-home wage of £43k.

and you can have a comfortable life on a £20k wage
these comments are completely pointless.

Well, given that the average household in come is just short of £30k then yes, of course, earning a decent chunk over this is rich.

then we do not agree on what being "rich" means. For the record, having a few more pounds to spend is not being rich... It's such a naive and childish view.

No I wouldn’t call them a scrounger. I thought the 30 hours childcare was available to everyone regardless of how much they earn.

Just as long as they’re not one of these people who get help from the government but yet call others for doing the same thing e.g. Getting 30 hours free childcare but calling someone worse off for getting tax credits.
Erm, still money from the tax payer, whether it’s childcare or actual money.

No one is a scrounged if they are simply claiming what they are entitled to, if you don't like the system write to your mp maybe.

Phew, I thought this was going to be another thread about Harry & Meghan.

Anyway, back to OP's question:

(a) I don't the state should be giving out 'benefits' to relatively well off people; but
(b) I wouldn't under any circumstances blame or slur anyone who was [unless they were employing some kind of tax dodges or whatever] simply claiming what they were legally entitled to.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that people do whatever is best for their family and that benefits such as you describe in the OP will influence people's decisions. There's nothing unethical or even unedifying about this.

Welfare policy should be designed with this assumption firmly in place.

For the record, having a few more pounds to spend is not being rich...

The difference is about £13k, lol that's delusional to think that's merely a 'few more pounds'. Seems to have hit a nerve with some though.

The other thing is that, whilst they are receiving a benefit for childcare, its value will be less than tax paid. Therefore, the alternative way of looking at it (and I think the way it might be treated in a different tax regime) is that say people earning under x amount who have children under 5 and woh are in a different tax bracket and this means that they have a higher personal allowance because of the need to pay for childcare (in most cases). In other words-this person is paying less tax because they have a child under 5 and are in paid employment. Ultimately, net they are contributing in tax whether they have an increased allowance or a benefit.

However, I dont see it as an issue that it's appropriate to be raised at work, save if the new working pattern is impacting the other employee...and even then it's about the pattern and arrangements to cover work and not their business the ways and wherefore of the other employee's personal arrangements.

I'd also suggest that this discussion be handled very carefully-depending on the people involved, and particularly their sax, this could very well be regarded as a sex discrimination or bullying issue-ie even the discussion of this single parent employee's childcare arrangements could be seen to be bullying and discriminatory, and particularly the language/accusation of them being a 'scrounger'.

The government has a set of schemes to enable tax paying middle-range ish working parents to continue to be in the workforce, Continue to pay taxes or even a higher rate of taxes and the entire scheme is based on enabling this specific sub set to stay in the workforce and earn and pay taxes at a certain level.

This is a different set of schemes, with a different set of ambitions to the benefits scheme which involves payments to those in dire need.

I have zero idea why the two are being confused here by those making a “should/should not” moral argument. The first scheme enables the workforce to run, generating income for the State, continuing to procreate and raise future workers and ensuring economic productivity in the short mid and long term.

The second one, benefitting out of that growing economy and an engaged workforce makes benefits available for those in dire need, those not in the workforce or struggling in other ways.

The two schemes have different purposes, different target groups and different ambitions.

BlindAssassin
no nerve being hit for pointing out that people are wrong.

Once you take into account things like tax hours worked and remove most of the financial help there's much less difference than people imagine and you are not rich for having a bit more.

It's astonishing that people spend so much time angry at someone "richer" than they are but are blissfully unaware of what the really rich not only have but are entitled to.

No one in real life apart from DH (and my boss obviously) knows how much I earn exactly so I don't really care what people think