To think people who talk about benefit claimaints negatively, but claim Working Tax credits (as do 9 out of ten families with children) are hypocrites

[harrietanderson]

People who talk about benefit claimants and scroungers negatively, but chances are they are claiming Working tax credits themselves are hypocrites.
9 out of 10 families with children qualify for this state benefit but still don't consider themselves to be state/taxpayer supported when in fact they are!

'It's interesting that so many of you on this thread see him as somehow less deserving of help or respect that people without chronic health problems'

Have people, though, PW?

I think most people here have been trying to make harriet aware that WTC and CTC are two separate things.

I personally hate WTC, having been made nearly homeless by them and still having about £3000 worth of debt from their cock up.

Soor took me so long to reply that everyone else pointed out the WTC thing

My children get tax credits on their building society interest because they're minors. By your logic, they're receiving benefits.

so have you, harriet.

but go on, share with us more anecdotes about people you know and how they look down on you.

i get £40 a month child tax credit, but i pay more than that in tax per month so i'd rather just pay less tax iykwim!

'i get £40 a month child tax credit, but i pay more than that in tax per month so i'd rather just pay less tax iykwim!'

pigs might fly, SE!

expat - yes, I think they have. Your own comment: 'the difference is that they are working' - am I mistaken to read into that the sentiment that those who work can accept state help with more self-respect than those who don't work?

Lots of people are commenting that there's a 'difference' between those who work yet claim state help, and those who don't. I'd really like someone to spell out exactly what this 'difference' is.

and don't get me started on what national insurance i have to pay

So is your argument that anyone with children (and therefore receiving non-means-tested child benefit) is nevertheless receiving benefits and, therefore, has no right to be critical of that subsection of society that sees a life on benefits as a valid lifetsyle choice?

'Your own comment: 'the difference is that they are working' - am I mistaken to read into that the sentiment that those who work can accept state help with more self-respect than those who don't work?'

Yes, you are mistaken.

Because it is a fundamental difference, not a hidden agenda .

You have to be working 16+ hours/week and earning £15,000/pa or less to qualify for it.

As opposed to other benefits.

And that WTC and CTC are different from each other, even though the same application is used to apply for both.

Again, a difference. Not an agenda to say one is better than the other.

Completely baffled by this thread - who is criticising whom anyway? I have never really heard anyone claiming wtc berating anyone else for getting benefits.
Plus, I thought it was for households earning something like £55k or less? (Where is the £15k figure from?) Which probably would be 9/10 of the population...

pw - I don't think that expat meant it like you're interpreting it.

I know what she means but can't explain it (if that makes sense).

pw...i don't think anyone on here was talking about people who can't work due to illness....it's about people who are fully capable of working..but choose not to for whatever reason.

I don't get child tax credit or working tax credit or anything apart from child benefit (although have realised am probably qualified to claim for CTC thanks to this thread).

STILL don't feel inclined to resent anyone else for being worse off than me.

I don't see any reason why there should be any tax credit or child allowances other than that the government has ruled that so many people are poor that they need them. This isn't money that is 'owed' to people. It is a benefit like any other.

So providing you're not commiting fraud to get it then any benefit or tax credit claiment deserves the same respect

Also, for WTC claimants, the thresshold and amount of entitlement differ if you, the employee, are disabled or if your child is disabled.

CTC, too, differs if your child is looked after by a registered child minder whilst you work v. if one person in a partnership stays home.

Further, people on JSA, IB, IS and other means-tested benefits qualify for CTC, even if not working at all or working under 16 hours/week.

"I don't know a single person who chooses to live on benefits when they are actually capable of holding down a proper job."

I think the problem is the definition of "capable" and "proper job".

I think that there are huge numbers of familes definitely working their socks off to avoid being forced to live on benefits. But once circumstances come about where you are forced onto benefits (loss of job, relationship break-up, illness, bereavement etc), then it actually can be very hard to get off benefits again, especially when you are in a position where you get a lot of money via benefits.

The difficulty comes when you have people who essentially would only get very lowly paid work, and in order to get that would have to give up their considerable freedoms, and yet financially whilst they are better off, there still isn't a huge difference between what they get through work and what they get through benefits. There isn't an easy answer.

OK, fair enough if that's not what is meant - but in the context of the question posed by the OP (is it hypocritical to talk negatively about benefits claimants while relying on state help), the rush to distinguish between WTC/CTC and benefits seems to me to be borne out of a desire to distance 'decent' working folk from 'scrounging' benefits claimants.

However, if I'm wrong about that then I'm happy to be.

policywonk - I think most people see a difference beween people who work or would like to - and those who choose not to. (And I don't mean people whose "choice" not to work is one forced upon them by circumstances, and so not really a choice at all).

And before anyone says that people who freely "choose" a life on benefits don't really exist - I can assure you that they do. My brother and quite a few of his mates, for example.

MAMM - childrens tax credit is for housholds earning up to £55k or thereabouts

Working family tax credits can be claimed by people who earn less than £15k.

i don't think anyone on here was talking about people who can't work due to illness..>>

The trouble is that there have been plenty of comments in the past about how people on benefits shouldn't have this that or the other since it's not their money they are spending.
These comments would equally well apply to claiments of tax credit/child benefit.

Of course what I really mean is that they don't apply to anyone at all and that everyone should be treated with respect.

PW As one of those you maybe think is criticising your brother - To me there is a difference between people who would work if they could get it, and those who are content to live on benefits and make no effort to get off them even when they could.

Maybe there really is nobody in the second category. Maybe everybody who could get a job is trying their best to get one. If so, then fine.

But I do think that there is a risk that people might find it better to get the same money without working as they can get on benefits, and that's what these payments are supposed to change.