Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To question this...?

318 replies

foureleven · 08/04/2010 15:43

I saw this on another thread and kind of hope the mum in question doesnt see this because I dont want to cause offense... just genuinely interested in peoples views..

(..treads carefully...)

I spotted this person say that she is a SAHM and her husband brings home £1000 a month. Plus they get child tax credits. Now I assume this is not 'working tax credits' as thats for childcare right? And they wont need it if she doesnt work.

It may be that its not a lot of money anyway and not worth getting one's knickers in a twist for but AIBU to wonder why a SAHM can claim benefits (other than initial maternity benefits of course)?

If you are a SAHM because your partner earns enough to cover everything thats one thing (and a debate for another thread, this is not ANOTHER SAHM Vs WOHM debate!)but why can women receive top up money to be able to stay at home with the children they cant really afford to?

Shouldnt we be responsible for bringing enough money in to the home for our children?

Genuinely ponders....

OP posts:
gaelicsheep · 09/04/2010 21:32

You are not the first, and you definitely won't be the last, to make the assumption that the taxpayer is subbing SAHPs. Hopefully you now realise that the extra amount of tax credits received is usually pretty negligible and that people generally have to make very many sacrifices for one parent to stay at home.

FlyingFig · 09/04/2010 21:50

'And I do feel that it is not necessarily the right of every single mum to stay at home with their kids and have their household income be topped up with tax credits'

Wow. A whole £1000 per month 'topped -up' with Tax Credits?

YABU - but I would say that.

I'm one of those people that doesn't question what Other People are getting - I'm just grateful that we live within a system that tries at least to ensure that those who find themselves to be less fortunate, are in some way enabled to move away from having a Hard Time living on the Breadline.

That's just me though

FlyingFig · 09/04/2010 22:08

Besides, surely there are more important things to get you knickers in a twist about?

Original poster
foureleven · 09/04/2010 22:15

Yeah there are more imporatant things, that's what I concluded a few posts up.

But dont we all get our knickers in a twist about trivial things sometimes? Earlier on I got all hot under the collar about the Eastenders plot!

I too am a greatful person but I do get cross sometimes, Im only human

There's a big discussion on the BBC News at the moment about what they are calling 'The Benefit System' and they are including tax credits in that.

Damn, and just when i thought I was straight on the difference

OP posts:
Original poster
foureleven · 09/04/2010 22:17

I blame in on being a Scorpio, I think is just in my nature to have twisted knickers!

OP posts:
gaelicsheep · 09/04/2010 22:20

My student loan deferral form includes CTC in the benefits section. I don't think of it that way so I didn't declare it as income for the first year - they believed my innocent mistake though. I couldn't get my head around them wanting my gross income, and then adding CTC onto it, even though in my view CTC is me receiving tax back. That's double counting as far as I can see - most unfair.

gaelicsheep · 09/04/2010 22:21

Should clarify that I didn't declare it because it didn't occur to me to look at the benefits part of the form.

Original poster
foureleven · 09/04/2010 22:30

That does seem unfair. I'd be peeved.

Its like how I pay tax on my pay, then I pay my childminder and she gets taxed too.. seems like doubling up to me!

By the time both she and I have bought the things we need and spent VAT on that. And then that money has paid the staff who work for the supplier of what ever we bought, and they have paid tax on their wages.. it pretty much all ends up going back to the same point and then gets farmed out.. It all really confuses me to be honest

OP posts:
MrsC2010 · 09/04/2010 22:41

Don't get me started on our tax system...how many things can they tax us on...over and over and over...

gaelicsheep · 09/04/2010 22:47

It's basically every time money changes hands isn't it? It's like that thing where you look into a mirror through a mirror through a mirror etc.

Original poster
foureleven · 09/04/2010 22:47

Crazy hey...

(sidles over to 'Politics' board with dictionary, wikipedia, google and a tin hat to hand)

OP posts:
FlyingFig · 09/04/2010 23:01

Yeah there are more imporatant things, that's what I concluded a few posts up.

All I was trying to say was, that £1000 is actually a pretty hard sum of money to live on each month - so why get upset over an amount such as that?

Original poster
foureleven · 09/04/2010 23:18

I didnt know how much CTC someone with £1000 earnings per month would claim. It could have been £50, it could have been an extra £1000...

Thats why i said in my OP 'it may be that its not enough to be getting my knickers in a twist for'

i didnt know how much it was.

OP posts:
FlyingFig · 09/04/2010 23:25

Well, now you know

FlyingFig · 09/04/2010 23:28

And who cares if it was a whole £1000 they were claiming each year?

If they need it, then they claim it.

Wow.....

gaelicsheep · 09/04/2010 23:29

Do you know now foureleven?

EllieAnne · 09/04/2010 23:32

Haven't read the whole thread, probably will over the next few days though, so this may have been said already so apologies if it has but....

Working tax credits replaced family tax credits which replaced tax relief. So these benefits have been around for a long time one way or another, previously you earned more before paying tax as a parent, now you claim that tax relief as payments instead. WTC is usually paid to the working parent not the one staying at home, to effectively top up the salary that is taxed more than it would have been under the old system. Childcare costs can only be claimed if both parents work (and not the full amount is covered)

Many other things I could say about op but I suspect it's all been said already!

lisad123wantsherquoteinDM · 09/04/2010 23:35

wow £1000 a months wouldnt pay for much in our house at all. Staying at home and looking after kids OR working is a choice! Least her husband is working, and she is raising her children, what bussiness is it of anyone elses anyway?

Original poster
foureleven · 09/04/2010 23:39

Yeah I do, figured it all out about 50,00000 posts back. Just keep seeing these posts pop up on my 'threads im on' page and annoyingly I cant help responding.

OP posts:
lisad123wantsherquoteinDM · 09/04/2010 23:45

you could always block it foureleven

gaelicsheep · 09/04/2010 23:46

Actually, I'm not sure I know the answer as the results from entitledto and the CTC calculator are wildly different.

gaelicsheep · 09/04/2010 23:58

Operator error...

For the benefit of anyone who, unlike the OP, still thinks an SAHP in this position is sponging off the state: the answer is that, without mentioning any figures, a little less CTC would be received if the lady in question also worked full time, but a good chunk of childcare costs would be paid by WTC.

In most cases, a SAHP does not cost the taxpayer money!!! Quite the opposite in fact - unless anyone wants to be ridiculous enough to start talking about the small amount of lost tax revenue.

I'll stop posting on this thread now fourelevens.

Original poster
foureleven · 09/04/2010 23:58

Can I? how? Sorry stupid question, now I know it can be done ill work it out, thanks lisa.

OP posts:
jurisfictionoperative · 10/04/2010 01:50

OOOH! MY OPINION COMING!
I have to answer this topic..
It mentions one of the basic flaws in the way that this country is run. Society today is in a state! Kids have no discipline, structure, routine or respect. And why is this? IMO because there is no family anymore.
You have a baby, return to work, claim money towards childcare costs, and by the time you have topped this up, take hove very little at the end of the week. Your kids spend hours every day with people who arent their parents, and grow up with no family values! And besides the government, for encouraging it, who's fault is it? Women. All of those in the sixties who burned their bras and demanded to be treated like men. I firmly believe that I am as good as a man, and there is little a man could do, that I couldn't. However, when it comes to my children, my role should be to stay at home, run the house, be there for my children and give them stability and values.
Why, rather than pay for childcare, and subsidies for mothers to go to work, can't the government sibsidise mothers to stay at home and do look after their families. Or better still adjust the economy so that fathers can earn enough to pay for their families. Look at it this way, If I worked till I had children, then stayed at home, My job would become available for someone else, therefore helping unemployment figures. There would be just as many people in work, but less unemployed. Families would have stability, and taxes would still be paid.
I am sure there will be plenty of people with a reply to this, it is just my opinion.

ToccataAndFudge · 10/04/2010 02:29

CTC will be under the benefits section because there is no longer a "child element" for JSA/IS - it's paid from the CTC.