If food prices have risen by - what? 20% - and fuel is sky rocketing then tell me WHY...

[objectivity]

...are those dependent on state benefits still subsisting on the same paltry weekly allowance?

As a lone parent I have been in work and out of work from time to time, sometimes supported by Tax Credits, other times dependent upon Income Support. The money never really stretches far enough, but how on EARTH are we supposed to survive if everything is now costing more.

An annual review isn't good enough. My weekly costs are rising and rising, from week to week pretty much, so if my allocated benefit is the minimum I need to live on in April, and prices have risen since then, how am I supposed to be surviving in June?

Anyone else REALLY struggling- more than ever?

My dp is working and hasn't had a pay rise.So don't know why those working are having to subsist on same paltry wage or why those on state benefit are having to do the same.I expect it is to do with companies making profit and the government swishing cash elsewhere.

Well, I won't argue with you there.

One of the points of the "Make Work Pay" agenda, was that the working poor should always be better off working than living on benefits. I'm not sure whether that's the case, tbh.

the main reason work doesn't pay for many is because the low earner loses a LOT of their housing benefit and almost always all of their council tax benefit, and that alone is thousands and thousands of pounds.

on top of having to pay NI and losing the 10p tax band (for many) and/or the massive failings in the tax credit system and you have millions who are working, and living technically below the poverty line.

Mmm. So it all comes back to high housing costs.

As nearly everything in Britain. Practically the only thing that can't be blamed on housing costs is the Iraq war. And yet it's the one thing that no political party will seriously touch with a bargepole. What does that say about our political system?

God I'm in a bad mood today

this is when i was optimistic about getting a job july 2006

Well, now, there won't be doing anything about the housing and its costs in the UK because too many people stand to lose too much money.

So it's pass the buck and stir up trouble and try to pit the public against the poor in general to hopefully keep their eyes off the ball.

My idea of an ideal Britain is one where we are:
a)not penalised for wanting to look after our own children (what is with the 'employ your mum or sister to look after your kids? If my mum can be paid to look after them, why can't I?)
and b)selfish employers do not make their employees work insane hours for minimum wage while they sit around in their office 9 til 5.
Oh, and c)people don't end up hating each other because they can't understand why some people haven't been pushed into the same difficult/shitty lifestyle choices they have (yet).
Now lets all join hands and sing...kum bah ya...

Or not

I sympathise with the OP. As benefits are supposed to pay the minimum that is needed to live on, then by definition those on benefits have no room for manouevre (can't spell that word). For most of us who work, however tight things might be (and for us that is very tight indeed) there should be at least some leeway. Not much, mind, and not for much longer the way things are going. But at least some of us will have the option of finding some additional work to make up the shortfall without immediately having our benefits cut/stopped.

Objectivity - going back to an earlier post of your "my childcare costs did not count as a 'cost' because they weren't provided by an Ofsted approved source". If they had been counted as a cost, would that really have made a difference or is that just a red herring? How much tax would you have saved with that? Enough to live on? Not being nasty here, just trying to work out if that is a real problem or only a perceived one.

Cristina if you are on a very low income, the govt will pay up to 80% of your childcare costs. It's a sliding scale, by the time you earn about £14K it has started to be less than 80%, and all the way up to about £50K they will pay some tiny percentage, but I don't know the exact figures. Trying to get the information about how tax credits are actually calculated, is like trying to solve the riddle of the sphinx. (Actually no, it's tougher, the riddle of the sphinx is quite obvious when you think about it.)

But anyway, if you're on a low income, say bringing in £700 a month and your childcare costs are £300, it matters if the govt will pay 80% of that. It's the difference between being able to survive on your income and not being able to.

This is a very judgmental thread (no surprise there then).

IMO the single most useful thing the Government could do is to get rid of the ridiculous 16 hours threshold for claiming the childcare element of WTC. For all the moralising on here about how easy it is to get a job - well I can tell you, from DH's experience, that in many parts of the country it just isn't. Where we used to live the only suitable job that came up locally was 15 hours a week and minimum wage. Well by the time childcare costs were taken into account DH would have earned a big fat zero.

Why is there any lower limit FGS? If you work you need childcare. 16 hours is also just too much for 2 days a week and that seems deliberate to me. The Government is purposely putting obstacles in the way of people supporting themselves - why, I don't know.

Even now, DH has a part time job but it isn't reliably 16+ hours a week so we daren't claim the childcare element. Thankfully I can now get childcare vouchers from work, but not everyone has that option.

TM - I noticed masses of jobs are pitched at 14 hours per week. It is still worth applying as many employers will give you the extra 2 hours.

However, if they don't, it's worth getting a Kleeneeze/ betterware type job for 2 hours a week. Or Avon might be more fun!

I have a full time job thanks . It's just that, despite a degree and 8 years experience, it's not far above that poverty line being discussed elsewhere so we needed additional income.

DH went for interview and was offered the 15 hours job. But they wouldn't up the hours and, the other big problem, they couldn't guarantee regular days/times. So he had to turn it down. And the regular hours thing certainly is a big problem. If you're having to use childcare you have to work predictable regular hours - many jobs will not accommodate that.

Anyway as I said DH now has a job but it's so close to the 16 hour limit that we daren't claim for childcare in case we end up being overpaid.

Am i right in thinking too that if you have irregular hours you end up paying for childcare you haven't used, just to keep your place open? (my neice has had this problem with her childminder)

Godzilla - yes.

It's a constant pita for me. I have to buy 3 afternoons a week at after school club, though quite often I only need one.

Ho hum.