51.00p wage = 46.00 rent......

black-saturn

Spendless wrote:

why is it ok to be at home with my kids today but tomorrow if hubby left me, then that's not acceptable

Very good point and thankyou.

Somerset

Spendless wrote:

How's it dishonest .

If a person doesn't work because of circumstances - disability, illness, depression, no work available, childcare committments, family concerns - these are examples not a complete list - the safety net is neccessary.

If a mum doesn't work because she prefers being a stay at home mum and family finances allow, that's the family's choice. It's their choice what is valuable to their family.

If a single mum, who needs to be with her kids, doesn't work ( see above ) again benefits are appropriate. Children's welfare is paramount,

If a single mum who has the time to work part-time for say £ 100.00 p.w. chooses not to, because her benefits would go down by £ 100.00 - that is dishonest. I can understand why she would make that choice. But the fact would then be, that the £ 100.00 worth of benefits would no longer be a 'safety net' because the mum had no choice or no means of paying the bills without them - it had become a decision that taxpayers should fund her, rather than her funding that portion herself.

Spendless

Somerset wrote:

If a single mum who has the time to work part-time for say £ 100.00 p.w. chooses not to, because her benefits would go down by £ 100.00 - that is dishonest. I can understand why she would make that choice. But the fact would then be, that the £ 100.00 worth of benefits would no longer be a 'safety net' because the mum had no choice or no means of paying the bills without them - it had become a decision that taxpayers should fund her, rather than her funding that portion herself.

It's not usually a "you'll loose (in benefits) the same amount £wise as you'll gain (in wages) though. Often on here people get told to see somewhere like CAB so they can do a 'better off calculation". That's what I mentioned earlier if I became a single parent I would take the option that left me financially better off.

Sometimes though not always it's financially worse off to work. What may make a difference to as single parent working and claiming tax credits versus being on IS is that maintainance paid isn't taken into account for tax credit purposes.

Somerset

gothgirl wrote:

I have recently started a second job,......Housing benifit have just reduced my claim to 24.00 a week from 69.95. Which means I'll be working 11.25 hours a weeek for 5.00.......!Now I am being told that I am exspected to clean toilets e.t.c. for an increase of income,of 5.00!Is this right?Would I be better off if I reduced my hours to 16?The local playgroup has offered me a job for 5 hours..

This is not a go at gothgirl - simply the above spells it out. The taxpayer can fund £ 45.95 p.w.( £ 69.95 less £ 24.00 ) or the claimant can work for that portion. Is the benefit of £ 45.95 a 'safety net' which the claimant can't exist without .... obviously not because that money is capable of being earned. The question then asked by the OP is should she cut her hours to keep more benefit.

You can call this 'living in the real world' or 'working the system' or whatever you like. It's why many people distrust the benefits system, feel it's being abused and fosters a dependency culture.

Spendless

Somerset wrote:

This is not a go at gothgirl - simply the above spells it out. The taxpayer can fund £ 45.95 p.w.( £ 69.95 less £ 24.00 ) or the claimant can work for that portion. Is the benefit of £ 45.95 a 'safety net' which the claimant can't exist without .... obviously not because that money is capable of being earned. The question then asked by the OP is should she cut her hours to keep more benefit.

You can call this 'living in the real world' or 'working the system' or whatever you like. It's why many people distrust the benefits system, feel it's being abused and fosters a dependency culture.

Isn't that the system at fault rather than people being 'dishonest'. If I've read the post correctly, it means gothgirl will be working 11 hours in order to be £5 a week better off.
We've had a similar problem with my nan she qualified for help with her rent, but every year when she got a rise from her private pension (from my grandad, who left work 9 years early due to a stroke and she left work to care for him) she reported it to the council, who immediately took around the same benefit back of her rent rebate. One year she was 21p better off, another year 2p. In essence she was living on same amount of money year after year. We got round it by lending her the money to buy her council flat, which at least now means she has all her pension to live on a weerk.

mad_bad_spender

Somerset wrote:

This is not a go at gothgirl - simply the above spells it out. The taxpayer can fund £ 45.95 p.w.( £ 69.95 less £ 24.00 ) or the claimant can work for that portion. Is the benefit of £ 45.95 a 'safety net' which the claimant can't exist without .... obviously not because that money is capable of being earned. The question then asked by the OP is should she cut her hours to keep more benefit.

You can call this 'living in the real world' or 'working the system' or whatever you like. It's why many people distrust the benefits system, feel it's being abused and fosters a dependency culture.

This isnt really the way it works though. When you lose benefits because of working you also lose entitlement to other things and that is what makes people worse off. That extra money can cost you free school dinners, school clothes vouchers, dental treatment, free prescriptions and the list goes on so although extra money and the feeling of earning more of your own money should be reward enough you can find yourself swamped with more things to pay for.

exil

With the tax credit system, the "poverty trap" isn't as bad as it was - but it will always be there to some extent as long as there are "means tested" benefits.

Alternatives

- left wing - make all benefits universal
- right wing - abolish all benefits

Savvy_Sue

Back to the OP: you say retraining's not available, but if you go for the option of working in childcare you'll almost certainly have to obtain a qualification if you don't already have one!

furby-2003

4 years ago I left my partner. (for very good reasons) I had no money a house and a 1 year old incuding 15k of debt. I got a job working 55 hours a week and worked up the ladder, even working 7 days a week. I left my son with whoever I could just to be able to go to work. Anyone who i trusted that is.

I now have a private rented house instead of council (because of a lot of hasstle off the council and neighbours) Car got dun over 9 times there in 2 years.

I have 2k left to pay off and a sharesave of nearly £7000 in august because of a company incentive.

Im now part-time do not rely on my ex partners money and never have done. Ive worked my god dam backside off like a little trogen. and work the hours my son goes to school so i can now pick him up and drop him off.

It can be done. Maybe not everyone but I did it!!!...and i never thought i would

I always wished I could spend that time with my son, but we wouldn't be where we are today if i did. I know what id choose

black-saturn

Feel sorry for you. You'll never get that time back with your son