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!

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

It's called Working Tax Credit now. No more working family tax credits, because single people and in some cases people without children are entitled to them, too.

Oh yeah i forgot about that.

It's for anyone on a low income except people under 25 if i remember right.

"Tax Credits Online

9 out of 10 families with children are entitled to tax credits. But you don't need to have children to qualify"

www.taxcredits.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/HomeNew.aspx

I claim child tax credit. And child benefit. And I work. But I never object to others claiming benefits. I'd rather a few people screwed the system, than anyone went without the neccesities. And FWIW I don't envy anyone who thinks that has to live on benefits.

Yes, Tamarto, that's why so many people got burned by the 10p fiasco.

LadyMuck, I agree that there are those who are caught in a benefits trap - my brother is one of them. He was recently offered a small amount of part-time work, but can't take it up because he'd lose most of his benefits. He also can't take on a full-time educational course without losing most of his benefit. He certainly shouldn't be despised for that (not saying anyone on this thread necessarily would, but plenty of people out there do).

In the case of, say, a single parent living on benefits who could take on a badly-paid job that would leave him/her worse off and mean that they had to put their children into childcare as well - I don't blame a person like that for remaining on benefits rather than taking the badly-paid job. I'd do the same.

Tamarto and Expat, thanks for clarifying, I didn't even realize they were 2 different things. I still think this is a kind of non-argument though, who are we meant to be cross with?

"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. Jesus. What an unpleasant bunch of attitudes."

Who said that PW? Name names, because I can't see any.

Um, yes, but 9 out of 10 are not entitled to Working Tax Credits, harriet, that is why people were pointing out the difference between WTC and CTC.

You need to be earning around £15,000/pa or less, gross, to qualify for WTC.

Furthermore, that figure is joint if you are married or living with a partner in a domestic situation.

Message withdrawn

Again, the level of CTC varies with a) age of children b) number of children c) if your child/children are looked after by a registered childminder whilst or if you are in employment.

Would the single parent be worse off though PW? I checked that "entitled to" website on a whim a few months ago to see how I would stand if I was on my own. Very hypothetically I might add.

I would get over £300 PER WEEK in tax credits as a single parent. That's a huge amount of money. With my salary of £16,500 gross, and any maintenance I received from DH. Does anyo single mother who would be physically capable of getting a job (so not on DLA for example) really get more than that on benefits?

"In the case of, say, a single parent living on benefits who could take on a badly-paid job that would leave him/her worse off and mean that they had to put their children into childcare as well - I don't blame a person like that for remaining on benefits rather than taking the badly-paid job. I'd do the same. "

Well if they are worse off then it is a no-brainer. But what about the situation where they would be say £10 per week better off? They don't want to work 20 hours a week for an extra £10. Should they have to in order to save the state (ie tax payers) money? And if not £10, is there a level at which if work pays, then they must work?

Yes, georgi, a single parent could indeed most definitely be worse off in work.

Especially because often they lose all council tax benefit and most housing benefit.

This can be a substantial sum, particularly if the person is in privately rented accommodation.

They may also lose things like free prescriptions, free school dinners and milk/fruit and veg tokens.

Check your facts Harriet

9/10 families are entitled to tax credits (Child Tax Credits as it happens)

Significantly fewer are entitled to Working Tax Credits

Exactly LadyMuck, I think that if they would be equally well off, or even slightly better off, they should work. I can't see a good reason why they shouldn't work in those circumstances.

If everyone took the view that they might as well stay on benefits, who the hell is going to work to pay the taxes to pay for it all?

I suppose my basic position is that no one should be forced to work in a specific job. Benefits keep people (and their dependents) at a pretty basic standard of living. I'd rather risk indulging the relatively small number of people who will take the piss, than force the majority into work that they might have good personal reasons for refusing.

I just don't believe that most benefits claimants would turn down decently paid work unless they had a good reason, and I don't like the inflexibility of workfare schemes.

If WTC/CTCs make the difference in terms of allowing people to get off benefits and back into paid work, then great.

georgimamma - I would be £400 a month better off if I were to work 20hrs a week at minimum wage.

HOWEVER, that doesn't take into account my housing costs, and as expat says - I'd lose my Council Tax benefit as well (don't currently get HB - but will be from some time next year)

my lone parent advisor took one look at the figures when they did my better off calculation , looked me straight in the face and said "if I was you I'd stay at home with your DC until your youngest starts school - and enjoy your OU course" (which I should start in February next year)

Georgimama - would you work for 50p an hour? In fact do you work?

Because actually if we all have to maximise the state's coffers, then I should be out at work right now, so that I can pay more tax. So should most SAHMs.

And MN would have to shut down....we wouldn't have time to post.

OK, there are other downsides. I'm not criticising you FAQ, but the reason I would work in those circumstances, even if I would in the short term be slightly worse off than on benefits, is that sooner or later the CTC etc is going to come to an end, when my children are grown up.

What would you be entitled to then? Not much I suspect. That's what would worry me.

Also, if you take a job on minimum wage you are unlikely to stay that way for the next 20 years or so - you would gain skills, probably qualifications, and increase your earning capacity.

Good for you and for your advisor, FAQ - I think you just made my point a lot more eloquently than I did!