Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

"Benefit scrounger" or not?

165 replies

SympatheticSwan · 14/01/2020 07:41

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.

OP posts:

sqirrelfriends · 14/01/2020 11:58

No, not at all.

Thoughtlessinengland · 14/01/2020 12:01

The simplistic take: Oh look Emily earns X amount. I deem X amount to be rich. What a shame they get 30 funded childcare hours. Ken down the road who earns 20k deserves that far more.

The real situation: Emily earning X pays a higher rate of taxes. A substantial amount. If they earn more than amount X they don’t get 30 funded hours. If they earn less than amount X or X, they pay a high rate of taxes and their take home pay can not afford FT or heavy PT childcare. Without the scheme, Emily will need to leave the workforce. Emily will leave the tax circuit. Emily’s higher rate of taxes will be lost. In some eventual manner that will affect - amongst numerous other things and millions of others profiles - the amount available for Ken. It will affect the economy. So the government has a scheme for working parents in Emily’s position which gives them support to keep them working which ultimately leads Emily to continue to pay a higher rate of tax or just tax itself. It makes financial sense for the entire economic system which includes the benefits system too.

Is it not evident why the first reading above is simplistic to the extent of misunderstanding the entire thing?

DecisioNN · 14/01/2020 12:01

No I wouldn’t call it benefit scrounging at all. It’s what they’re entitled too and clearly they still work!!

A benefit scrounger is someone that can work but chooses not too and gets funded by the state! Then again more fool the stat for allowing this!!

DecisioNN · 14/01/2020 12:06

Also you could go so far as saying those that are in cheaper council/ housing association accommodation, shouldn’t be allowed to continue living there if their circumstances change for the better.

Is that fair or not?

Dontdisturbmenow · 14/01/2020 12:10

If that someone is working for say the nhs, earning £60k, they will pay 12.5% towards their pension and has a degree and postgraduate loan to repay, that's £456 a month towards pension and £502 for student loan repayment.

That leaves them with £34k net income or £2,830 a month. That's not bad but certainly not rich if your mortgage is £1,000 or more.

It's not that much more than some people earning a quarter less could get with top up benefits.

SummersMahoosiveClipOnFringe · 14/01/2020 12:17

I would think they are working the system.

Anyone getting child allowance, help with childcare costs or reduction in council tax is benefitting from the contributions of others to cover their costs.

SummersMahoosiveClipOnFringe · 14/01/2020 12:19

This idea of 'entitlement' is an interesting one. It is still a subsidy from larger society no matter how you dress it up.

Thoughtlessinengland · 14/01/2020 12:22

The finances of the childcare support scheme have been worked out to be in favour of the State and support the State can provide by enabling tax paying and higher tax paying people to continue to be tax paying and higher tax paying people. Without this scheme these people would quit the workforce and their taxes would cease. The aspirations behind the scheme are not to subsidise people to help them in their dire straits. It’s ambition is to keep the workforce running and paying money to state. What is so utterly complicated about this?

Billben · 14/01/2020 12:26

Anyone getting child allowance, help with childcare costs or reduction in council tax is benefitting from the contributions of others to cover their costs.

This person was paying supertax and now they are still a higher taxpayer. I think they are and have been paying enough tax themselves in their working life without it being labelled as “benefitting from the contributions of others”, don’t you think? I mean how many people doing part time hours on a minimum wage actually pay any tax yet can still claim for things? Those are the ones who are benefitting from the contributions of others in my opinion.

BellsaRinging · 14/01/2020 12:29

But actually, whilst you are being 'subsidised' you're actually paying in more than you're taking out in the 'subsidy' so you are making a greater net contribution.

Also, we are assuming for the purposes of debate that his persons stated reasons for working fewer hours are as simple as a mathematical calculation. I'm sure they have also factored in lower stress/more time with child etc. Are they not entitled to do that? Or, because they are a single parent they have to work all possible hours, and/or not claim something they are entitled to? I'm sure the nrp doesn't get this shit...

Thoughtlessinengland · 14/01/2020 12:29

fundamentally, people agonised by the sheer “unfairness” of this are refusing to grasp that this scheme exists to keep tax paying people stay I workforce to keep paying taxes. Without this scheme the State (and it’s real benefits schemes) lose armies of workers and tax payers. It really is a no brainer.

LynseyLou1982 · 14/01/2020 12:30

Nope wouldn't consider this scrounging at all. They are doing nothing wrong as they meet the criteria required and also what you mention aren't benefits. We use tax free childcare and we will also be using my 30 free hours once our child turns 3 and we don't consider myself benefit scroungers at all, we claim our monthly child benefit too. These are the only government schemes we are entitled to apply for so why not. Though both of us combined are on less than £60k per year but that's beside the point.

Billben · 14/01/2020 12:30

. It is still a subsidy from larger society no matter how you dress it up.

But this person has already paid, still paying and will keep paying in the future more into the system than a large number of society. People on minimum wage paying a pittance of tax (in the big scheme of things) aren’t the ones who keep this country running.

NewName73 · 14/01/2020 12:35

Anyone getting child allowance, help with childcare costs or reduction in council tax is benefitting from the contributions of others to cover their costs.

Rubbish, this person has already paid into the tax system and is continuing to do so.

Would you say that about someone making an appointment to see the GP? Or sending their child to state school? This really isn't that different.

Original poster

SympatheticSwan · 14/01/2020 12:40

The way you have worded this is very clever to get people provoked I think.
I promise, hand on heart, that it wasn't "cleverly worded" to provoke people.
It is something that someone had actually said to another person (not discussed in the work meeting, a comment during after work drinks, when childcare topic was raised). In the context of the other person giving advice on "why don't you do like me, look - I went part time and let my nanny go, and figured out there's plenty of help out there, including the single person council discount". Probably not realising that the first person earns full time the same as they earn now part time. Then the first person said - "Well I don't see it being different to a typical benefit scrounger, intentionally working less hours and claiming state help, thanks that's not for me". That's it. I was genuinely trying to figure out whether that would be a common view, or completely bonkers.
At no point I actually called anyone a scrounger.

OP posts:

BlindAssassin1 · 14/01/2020 12:43

People on minimum wage paying a pittance of tax (in the big scheme of things) aren’t the ones who keep this country running.

Its not the people wiping arses in care homes, or driving our food across the country or even those people, obliquely referenced in the op, who care for small children for shockingly poor pay, oh no. Good grief, what a way to flatter yourself.

Spidey66 · 14/01/2020 12:52

I'm on a reasonable salary.

I have an underactive thyroid, so get my prescriptions free. My brother has glaucoma, so I get annual eye tests free. I can afford them, but of course I take them (without taking the piss.....I don't ask my GP for OTC meds on prescription.)

Does that make me a scrounger, then? I can afford these things after all.

ethelfleda · 14/01/2020 12:58

No. Not a scrounger AT ALL

PhilCornwall1 · 14/01/2020 12:58

@Spidey66

That's a good point. I get mine free too, as I had to have my thyroid removed years ago and have to take thyroxine.

I have a life long illness and have to take several other medications. Just two of the other medications together cost the NHS over £11k a year, but obviously I don't pay due to medical exemption.

I'm on a good salary and other job related benefits. I guess I'd potentially be classed as a scrounger too.

ethelfleda · 14/01/2020 13:02

The aspirations behind the scheme are not to subsidise people to help them in their dire straits. It’s ambition is to keep the workforce running and paying money to state. What is so utterly complicated about this?

This.

VanGoghsDog · 14/01/2020 13:02

Regardless of whether they are or are not a "benefits scrounger", this is not a work issue and the complainer should be told to keep their opinions to themself and get on with their work.

The govt puts these things in place for exactly this situation, this person has chosen to take time with their family, which you only get once. I'm sure they will work more hours in future.

Btw, the govt is not "paying for them to have two days off", the individual's hard work, qualifications etc is doing that in that they can earn enough in three days to support themselves. It's important for children that they have time with their parents, not just nannies and nursery.

ethelfleda · 14/01/2020 13:04

And to take it a step further... those people who are in work and paying taxes BECAUSE of the free childcare will probably be buying more as they have more money, which keeps others in jobs who also pay taxes. It also keeps nursery workers in jobs who also pay taxes and use their money to buy goods/services etc
It has a knock on effect in boosting the economy too.

Billben · 14/01/2020 13:12

You fool 😂 I work part time on a minimum wage in a care home “wiping arses” as you’ve so politely put it. So I don’t think I was flattering myself with my post 😀. At the end of the day, the country needs money to run and like myself, lots of people don’t, or pay hardly any tax.

funinthesun19 · 14/01/2020 13:34

People on minimum wage paying a pittance of tax (in the big scheme of things) aren’t the ones who keep this country running.

Really? Maybe they should pack all their jobs in and then you’ll see just how big a part they play in keeping the country running. Snob.

MiniEggAddiction · 14/01/2020 13:58

People on minimum wage paying a pittance of tax (in the big scheme of things) aren’t the ones who keep this country running.

Actually lots of them are - they're keeping the costs of food, service, elderly care, council tax down. If you want people to contribute more you have to pay them a higher wage for full time work and that cost will be passed on to the consumer. If you allow industry to pay people below a living wage for a full time job then you need to help people survive with tax money then it's the industry who is taking the piss - not the people working a full time job and expecting to be able to live off it.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Swipe left for the next trending thread