Boom-time on benefits: The 140,000 families who claim £20,000 a year in handouts

LilacPixie

There is WTC and CTC. I think WTC cut of is around 20k for a couple with 1 child and 16k for a single claiment. CTC cut of is around 56k but anything over a 25ishk earnings asa couple you get £10 per week.

From what i remember for those who do claim WTC their award is reduced by 37p for every £ they earn. I would imagine for alot of families that this would mean that working additional hours or a second job not worth it.

SingleSue

When I returned to work after having my third child, we were worse off. I had to give up a carers allowance and any extra I earnt was taken off our WTC (it might have been family credit at the time, limits and payments were a lot lower), plus I had fuel costs extra....I didn't return to work for money though but for my own sanity.

A couple of years down the line and we were better off than we had been as I had a few pay rises, I switched to a diesel car and I worked extra shifts...oh and hubby finally got a few decent payrises!

I did wonder initially if I was completely mad as I could have stayed at home and got similar money but then I would have been a complete basket case in the process.

LilacPixie

it is actually a disgrace that in many cases benefits are the best option in the financial sense. It seems to me that the system is wrong.

shirlgirl2004

Yes but the problem is people talk about "not worth it" with regard to working more hours. That is wrong! If you have the capability to work more hours to support your family then you should do so. People shouldn't expect others to pay them benefits so they can have an easier life. Benefits should be there to stop people living in poverty not to stop them working hard!

Generali

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

Yes but the problem is people talk about "not worth it" with regard to working more hours. That is wrong! If you have the capability to work more hours to support your family then you should do so. People shouldn't expect others to pay them benefits so they can have an easier life. Benefits should be there to stop people living in poverty not to stop them working hard!

You are absolutely right of course.

The problem is in moving from that logical position to a workable system. Some pretty bright people over the past 400 years have been trying and the only effective way to reduce the welfare bill is to make receiving welfare more unpleasant.

Basically in practice the trade-off boils down to how horrid do you want it to be to receive a welfare cheque. My opinion is that it should be more horrid than at present. Others feel it should be less horrid. Those in the latter camp are flying in the face of history if they think that won't mean a bigger bill unless they have come up with the genius idea that has eluded many thinkers for centuries.

Airwolf1

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

Yes but the problem is people talk about "not worth it" with regard to working more hours. That is wrong! If you have the capability to work more hours to support your family then you should do so. People shouldn't expect others to pay them benefits so they can have an easier life. Benefits should be there to stop people living in poverty not to stop them working hard!

But take 1 working 37 hours a week. If that person then works another 15 hours a week to top up the income, but then loses out on WTC (so doing 15 hours a week for minimal amount (especially if that is a lot of time driving, so using fuel etc)) what is better? Stick with job 1 and WTC and spend more time with your family and being with your children or doing both jobs for a small amount of extra income and hardly seeing your kids? It is what people value most I guess.

When I leave for work at 6am I don't see my baby. When I get home after 7pm, he's back in bed. If this happened day in, day out, it wouldn't be nice. I enjoy that time with my child, and it is spending time with him that makes me feel wanted and needed as a father too. The smiles and laughs I get, the tantrums at times - I'd hardly see any of this.

penguin83

The thing that seems wrong to me with the tax credits system is that it places no encouragement to further yourself or your career, when I started in my current job right at the bottom of the ladder in 2003 I received tax credits, this has cut drastically due to our earnings increasing massively (fair enough) but financially our combined income now is no better than when I was filing for a living on pretty much minimum wage with tax credits to 'top up'.

I had 2 children by 21 and have always been working full time. I cut short my maternity leave both times as I was not getting full pay and I dont get any sort of carers allowance for my disabled son because I earn too much (again fair enough) and as I cant afford to give up work full time, I am studying for my degree with the OU (again with no help towards the fees)

I think it is the additional things that really make it add up like in my case. Full uni fees would be paid for, free prescriptions and even things like the home front grants to replace your heating etc that I would suddenly qualify for if I was to give up working along with the benefits of actually seeing my children once in a while! x x

shirlgirl2004

Airwolf1 wrote: »

But take 1 working 37 hours a week. If that person then works another 15 hours a week to top up the income, but then loses out on WTC (so doing 15 hours a week for minimal amount (especially if that is a lot of time driving, so using fuel etc)) what is better? Stick with job 1 and WTC and spend more time with your family and being with your children or doing both jobs for a small amount of extra income and hardly seeing your kids? It is what people value most I guess.

When I leave for work at 6am I don't see my baby. When I get home after 7pm, he's back in bed. If this happened day in, day out, it wouldn't be nice. I enjoy that time with my child, and it is spending time with him that makes me feel wanted and needed as a father too. The smiles and laughs I get, the tantrums at times - I'd hardly see any of this.

People should value supporting their own children and not relying on others to do so. If you can work an extra 15 hours a week then you should, in preference to getting money from those that do work 50 hours a week.

It shouldn't be about forcing people to do it they should have some pride!

olly300

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

People should value supporting their own children and not relying on others to do so. If you can work an extra 15 hours a week then you should, in preference to getting money from those that do work 50 hours a week.

It shouldn't be about forcing people to do it they should have some pride!

This government has worked so it has removed the pride from most people.

There are few people on here including myself whose parents held down 2 or more jobs to make ends meet so were brought up knowing you have to work to get things. Now parents don't have to and while the children win because they see their parents more, they lose out as most of what you learn as child is by what you seeing what the adults around you are doing.

robin_banks

Having worked in benefits offices (unlike most of you) I did come across one case where a family were in receipt of a very high (even for 1996) level of benefit.

2 severely disabled children and a disabled parent in that family. I fully accept there are large families totally dependent on benefit but they are few and far between.

A newspaper headline never tells you the truth.