To question this...?

[foureleven]

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....

WWW - I still don't know how you do it. My hubby earnt a wage that brought in just over that and after rent, council tax, utility bills, road tax, MOT, insurance we barely had 2 pennies left for food. Let alone a takeaway, never ever had take out. This was a year ago.

Maybe its the area we lived in, but I can't work out how you do it...

I believe YABU. In Australia there is a system called family tax allowance - based on the family income - irrelevant who earns what. It is on HOUSEHOLD income.

I don't know the British system though because, despite being entitled to it when I was there, I couldn't bear the thought of having to go through the paperwork for what would be a relatively short time and we could cope without it.

Minimum wage wouldn't cover full time childcare anyway, so 2 minimum wage earning people just couldn't have a child , not even 1 unless somehow they got housing or benefits. That is so so wrong. My DH used to work nearly double a standard week, and nearly double min. wage so we could live a very very basic life - small house with mortgage, 2 second hand cars, no spare money, no holidays, no real extras. That is what should be achievable on ONE minimum wage.

we have a morgage, but paying interest only and its VERY little. we've tried to get good offers on utilities etc, you sort of learn to deal with what you've got...

i live in scotland, my council tax isn't that high... we do pay about 150 pcm on elec. £40-50 on food for the week, DS gets plenty fruit (he's at the i hate all veggies stage) and proper food. i think we're lucky.

we don't own a car though, so that might be a contributing factor. expensive wee machines.

ASL - you are encouraging poor people to breed. What on Earth is wrong with you.

It's attitudes like yours that have brought this country to it's knees and

this is really a politics thread, isn't it?

my belief is that everybody should be entitles to a ceratin amount to live on.

say the gov. decided that £20k was suitable to live on for a family of 2 parents/3 children (totally plucked out of the air, i've no idea how much raising 3 kids costs). then if a family earns less than that amount, they get the rest made up.

so if a family earned £19k, they would get £1k.

it's not as simple as minimum wage, because it wouldn't change if one or both parents worked.
which would mean that more families could have one SAHP and one wage earner without being penalised for it.

Witchy .. please don't feel bad about trying to give yr DC the best start in life. They 're little for such a short time.

The attachment theory does mean something.

I'm with Januaryjojo.

Child tax credits are for all families to apply for.

I am a SAHM (well, not quite, but for the purpose of tax credits I am).

I do not get WORKING TAX credits because, I do not work (enough).

Simple.

We get CHILD TAX credits based on our family income because we have children. We get it because we, like most parents, are encouraged to do so (by government advertising).

I do not think that I need to be penalised for making a lifestyle choice, particularly when the so called benefit is based on family income, and not WHO works.

januaryjojo - not everyone gets child tax credit. I believe the threshold is £58k, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

ASLD - you are absolutely right about the minimum wage/benefit difference. Someone who works should always be better off than if they claimed benefits.

Another thing, take a soldier (bottom rank) - that's not much above minimum wage. That soldier can literally not afford to have a stay at home wife and a child or two. THe only way is the subsidised housing, tax credits, child benefit etc. That is disgusting. Not everyone can be lawyers, accountants etc. Not everyone even wants to. DH wants to join the RAF - by chance his first choice trade is about £36,000. His second choice trade is £16000. He shouldn't have to not do no.2 because it would be foolish to earn that little.

Since when is WTC anything to do with childcare? DH got WTC before we moved in with him. My mum is entitled to £5 per month WTC and her youngest child is 24. WTC are to bring your wage upto a liveable amount.

CTC can have an element of childcare attatched to them, if you are in need of it. BUt you still get it as single parent/SAHM?unemployed parent etc.

We are on about just below 1k a month and we get far more WTC than £40 per month.

Bremusa; I would never and have never claimed anything of the sort an never have I heard anyone claim anything like that.

"it's not as simple as minimum wage, because it wouldn't change if one or both parents worked.
which would mean that more families could have one SAHP and one wage earner without being penalised for it. "

I am not sure I understand - are you saying you think both parents should be encouraged to work? I don't think anyone questions the fact that a parent (pref. mum) staying at home is best. I think a rise in min. wage (and obviously alot of other complex things) would encourage one of a couple to go and work, and the other to stay at home and look after the child/ren. If the other parent decides to work and use childcare, then that is their choice but they shouldn't have to. If the working partner decides to do whatever (education/just climb the ladder) to earn more - great. But someone who works full time at min. wage should reap the benefits (for want of a better word) of it. Not everyone can progress, nor should they have to. The wrong people are paying for this - it shouldn't be the government in the form of benefits it should be the employers who are exploiting the minimum wage.

Thats right, not 'everyone under the sun' can claim tax credits.

We can't. If I didnt work we could though apparently as far as I can understand now that you guys have explained.

Shall we drop it now, some of you have taken real offesnse at what was meant to be an honest question. I didnt ask the lady directly because I didnt want it to be personal.

Im sure for every person like me who pays a load of tax and wonders where it all goes and has a moan about it - there's a person who has made completely different choices sat there moaning about being the one that is hard done by

Its human nature. Only by asking people in different situations what there view point is can we all understand each other.

Maybe I wont bother next time, Ill just sit here and stew

Oh god I tried to leave but..

I don't think anyone questions the fact that a parent (pref. mum) staying at home is best

Pardon?

ASLD -I totally agree with you about the need for the minimum wage to be signficantly higher than benefits,
however I could not disagree more with your statement

'I don't think anyone questions the fact that a parent (pref. mum) staying at home is best.'

That is a totally subjective opinion, and to state is as fact is insulting to the millions of mothers and fathers who work.

There is no 'best'. We all make the decisions we think are right for our own family.

foureleven do you not claim family allowance?(known as child benefit these days, I think) That is something everyone is entitled to regardless of income, but I don't see child tax credit as being much different, although it is income based.

If people are entitled to it, then why shouldn't they have it? The only alternative to a lot of families if earning aroung £1000 a month would surely be to give up work and live soley on benefits, which would be worse, as I really can't understand how a family with a couple of children could survive on that amount? Even with help for childcare, not all SAHM's can afford to work.

and look at this

"What are the current rates of the national minimum wage?
There are three levels of minimum wage, and the rates from 1 October 2009 are:

?£5.80 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older
?a development rate of £4.83 per hour for workers aged 18-21 inclusive
?£3.57 per hour for all workers under the age of 18, who are no longer of compulsory school age"

2010 in the UK, cheap child labour exists. Why is a 17 year olds working hour worth less than a 22 year olds?

A 17 year old can earn a whopping £135.66 before tax (if it's even enough to be taxed!) for a full working week. What the hell does that cover? Legally allowed to be kicked out of home, but cannot possibly live on that. It's no wonder people choose benefits, and no wonder people are forced onto them.

midori, yes I do but EVERY claims that even millionaires! - dont get me started. Why isnt that means tested??

Oops sorry to double post. My gripe isnt people claiming what theyre entitled to. Its with the system in general.

I'm glad in one way that I don't live in the UK anymore, the system you have always sounds bizarrely complicated with myriad forms and guessing incomes in advance and benfits/tax credits...not to mention all the stories of over and underpayments and clawbacks etc.

Sounds mental.

We get nowt, its much easier. Although it makes us very poor, so maybe not.

So, you claim something that you are entitled to, despite apparently having a good family income, purely as you are entitled to it. So, why is other people applying for money that they are entitled to wrong?

Maybe only the rich should have children? Then they can afford to have them and not claim anything.

Op you are missing the point of working and child tax credits completely.

They are basically a tax break for people on low incomes or with children without needing to tax them differently through their tax code. They are not a benefit in the same way that DLA/JSA/Housing benefit/council tax benefit etc are.

And the reason for that is because it is not your employer's business if your family income is above or below a certain threshold or how many children you have.

The level of red-tape though is IMHO currently too much but giving tax breaks by PAYE to married people (something the Tory's proposed) or to those with children on their income tax means revealing more to an employer than is necessary or proper.

At least that's my understanding

I know it's a very simplistic view, but in total 'caveman terms' (bad at wording this), it's better for a mum to stay at home. That is totally excluding maybe a mother ability to earn more, personal choice, maybe a father would be better at bringing up child/ren... I am on about just the basic human needs - breastfeeding etc. I am not saying mothers should, but I do think most probably want to and it should be enabled. Of course I do not think there should be any penalisation of 2 partners working, or dad staying at home - I think maternity leave and paternity leave should be the same and somehow linked. Basically, if I was being PC, I think min. wage should be enough for one parent to be able to stay at home.