in thinking that the Government cannot possibly ensure people are better off working than on benefits unless they increase wages massively?

[TheJollyPirate]

TBH I cannot see how the Govt are going th achieve their aim to make sure "nobody is better off financially on benefits than in work".

I work part-time as I have a son with a disability. I take home £849 and get Tax credit of £190 plus Child benefit of course - Working Tax credit adds another £50 - all in all just over £1100. I am just over the limit for housing benefit and all other help although if DLA is approved for my son that may change a bit.

One of my families gets housing benefit of £700 a month plus tax credit, plus income support, plus child benefit. On paper at least they out-strip me and unless wages drastically improve (oh - was that a recession I just saw over there) then nothing much CAN change. The Govt are talking big but cannot deliver no matter what they say.

I will stay worse off financially than the family I work with who will remain unemployed because wages are NEVER going to amount to enough for them to get work and maintain their home. Not their fault and I am more fortunate in other ways but financially - nah - they are doing a bit better than me (but probably only just).

I am watching the Govt but not holding my breath on this one.

Or do you know different?

If so - explain because I am being a bit thick about it.

How though, with the top ups and contributions towards rent etc?

Obviously it's true for anyone that if their outgoings are more than their income, they're in trouble. That's simple sums. I'm interested in how on a low income you wouldn't actually get enough top ups to cover your costs.

Sunshine

Expat - They can work 16 hours without it affecting their entitlement the same as the low income British single mums.

Entitlement to what?

Sorry if I have missed this bit.

haven't had a "better off" calcution done yet this time round on IS. But 2yrs ago I had one done and she calculated I would have been £100 a week worse off if I went back to work then for 16hrs a week...

But I know that when I was still with exH we could NOT have afforded for him to take a job that paid less than 13k a year the top ups simply didn't cover the bills......and that was with no childcare to pay.

yes I'm intrigued about that as well sparkle -

but you'll have to excuse me now - I need to go and buy a new inlet pipe for my washing macine and attempt to put it on without flooding the kitchen.........this wonderful "lifestyle" on benefits doesn't quite cover the cost of getting someone to come inand fix it for me.......

Forgive me for not wading through the entire thread, but it strikes me that first major disincentive to those on benefits is that for every pound you earn, benefits are reduced by some 95% in the pound.

I know we are in a massive hole and need to save money, and an increased amount of people paying NI, income tax is the way forward, but it's not going to happen if the cut and removal of all help is immediate.

Could some deferred system, or threshold not be used, with the benefits being slowly phased out over 6m or a year once the income had reached a certain level. Sort of akin to the salary threshold that Uni students have when they graduate before they have to start paying back the student loan.

We are no longer a rich enough country to support literally everyone, indefinitely, but we need to retain our sense of fairness.

Talking of NT children (because I totally agree, children with severe SEN are a different issue) I think there are two ways of looking at it

Yes, you can see childcare as incredibly expensive.

Or, you can see it as actually a pretty reasonable deal for what it is - ie looking after what's most precious to you. People don't begrudge spending hard earned money on holidays, mortgages etc - but we have this culture of somehow thinking that it's not reasonable to spend out on making sure our children are cared for properly.

I think its about looking at the bigger picture. I've known people who begrudge doing jobs where they have to pay for their kids to be looked after for an hour or two after school, because, by their reasoning, the childcare wipes out their hourly wages for those last couple of hours. But overall, they are making money, because if you work, say, 9 to 5, with school age kids, then you are getting about 6 and a half hours of that absolutely free, while they're in school. Likewise with school holidays. Even if working through August leaves you out of pocket for that month, you just have to balance it out over the year.

I have never begrudged paying for childcare (even when it took up all my income for a few years) because I think you need to look at things long term. (I do, however, think childcare costs should be tax deductible as they are a direct cost of working.)

Ultimately, while the govt should be supportive of families, no one should expect the state to pick up the bill for the choice to have children. I chose to have 3 children, which cost us dearly financially - but it was our choice.

so you weren't a single parent then when it used up all your income?

I don't (won't) begrudge paying for childcare

but

A) not everyone is lucky to find a 9-5 job (or even between the hours of 8am and 6pm)

b) not everyone is going to be able find childcare outside of those hours

c) a single parent on a low wage is unlikel to be able to cope over the August holidays if the extra childcare costs leaves then short for the entire month......

I agree violethill, so many people look at the cost and think its not worthwhile. However overall it can be and its only the most expensive pre school age and drops significantly after that age. I dont begrudge paying childcare either, I know my DS is safe and having fun whilst I work.

"Ultimately, while the govt should be supportive of families, no one should expect the state to pick up the bill for the choice to have children. I chose to have 3 children, which cost us dearly financially - but it was our choice." Wise words but sadly lots of people don't agree and see it as their "entitlement" to stay home (not talking carers/disabled people before anybody jumps on me). Whilst peoples circumstances can change its not an excuse to not work for x years - nobody should have the choice to stay home at the tax payers expense. It also means that by the time the government says they have to work they have been out of the workplace for so long that there CV is very lacking to employers. Also many wont work for min wage in basic jobs as they expect the perfect high end job, with term time only hours and a few days a week.

Cutting benefits is the only way to ensure nobody has long gaps out of work and people do not choose to live off the state. Make childcare subsidised or tax deductible - that way those who work to provide for their children get a helping hand with the major costs.

"Especially low waged paying for 2 or 3 children in childcare"

Those on low wages will get help via tax credits so childcare will not be as much of a burden to those as those who fund it themselves entirely. Its also a lifestyle choice to have children so costs should have been thought of before having them.

Yes, circs can change but they dont change the fact that a parent should be responsible for providing for them. Both the one who they reside with and the NRP. A single parent is only a lone parent where the partner has died. Many NRP contribute, have access etc so many lone parents have the hours at school and hours with NRP to work - that will mean minimal childcare costs once the child is at school but WTC pays most of the costs anyway so pretty irrelevant.

yes but if you are paying ALL of your wages, plus some of your WTC on the childcare alone, then that means you are relying on the remainder of the WTC and our child benefit, plus if you're lucky a small amount of housing benefit and council tax credit to pay all of our bills.

And this is ALL assuming that you can get "regular" hours work.

Not all of us are lucky enough to have NRP's who give a rats arse about their children.

Yes I'm about to go through the CSA to get some money out of him seen as though he can't even manage to help me out occasionall with childcare for church stuff........but that £20 a month isn't to go very far.

And 20% to "top up" for childcare for 1 child is going to be a lot less to "top up" for childcare for 3 children..

and actually the choosing to have a family is a right, one can argue about the logic of choosing to start a family if you "can't afford them" (although most people I know that are now on benefits/low wages started a family when they could afford it and circumstances changed) - but the right to start a family is just that - a right

Good posts HappyMummy.

"If the Govt target CTC or childcare vouchers those are the ones buggered and who will remain on benefits"

Those that have a work ethic will be working already, its those that see it as their right not to work that need targetting. They are not interested in childcare costs anyway as dont need it if not working.

Benefits need to be cut so that they provide the bare minimums and any extras come from working. They are far too generous at present, if they simply provided a roof/food/clothes there would not be millions choosing to live on them.

Tocca, the childcare would pay 80% and CTC/WTC usually covers the shortfall and even some surplus. Given and CTB, CB and HB plus the WAGE then it should be enough to run a household. People manage to work and have children without the aid of such generous benefits so its even more doable to those that claim top-ups.

I get 80% childcare (which is included in the CTC/WTC), work 23 hrs, get no HB (as I earn on the threshold of the limits and trying to get to the HB office to claim for
£5 a month is more stress than it's worth), full CB and still find that I am breaking around even, sometimes missing £s but never having enough that I might be able to save. Buy my clothes from charity shops and cheap stores.

Doable, but not happy. If CTC/WTC was taken away from me, I would be well and truly up a creek and would HAVE to resort being on benefits even though I would show willingness to work.

If I increased my hours, the amount of childcare would go up, the amount of CTC/WTC would go down and I would be still in the same boat.

Why not give benefits in voucher form - housing, food tickets for the supermarket, bills payment to a ceiling limit and just a small amount of cash. If you give people money then there is no need to work to be paid.

Its not just £65 a week though is it Riven, if it was purely that amount people would never choose it as a lifestyle.

When you add up what a lone parent can claim in terms of HB, CT benefit, IS, CTC, CB, free prescriptions, free school means, grants for free laptops, uniform, school trips it adds up to a hell of a lot of money - hence why people see it as a lifestyle. People on benefits can actually have more household income than people who actually work - why on earth should that happen.

Bluecardi, vouchers could work if done properly - its a welfare system after all so it should not matter if it paid in vouchers.

Happymummy - I'm just trying to find a way round the no incentive to work. I'm shocked at free laptops & school trips & all the things.

Vouchers aren't deeming - how can people who benefit from the tax paid by others complain about the form of their payment.