Am I Eligible?

amersall

bestpud wrote: »

The government is 'unfair' to part time workers, when there is no reason for them not working full time.

Where is the pride in working less hours through choice and going cap in hand to the government for a subsidy?

Pride, as you describe it, would surely involve working sufficient hours to pay your own way?

i think working tax credit is unfair ,you cant put a claim in untill your 25 then you have to work 30 hours or more , i dont see why 20 hours is not acceptable (oh yes i do so the government get to help less people out) but people think isnt working tax a great idea. i work 25 hours and i work hard in that 20 hours in a job that i like, there are some on this forum who are down right miserable cant bear anyone getting a little bit more than them!! at least this young woman is trying (annabelle could your employer not give you a few extra hours? if not and you got another little job dont forget to phone tax office and allocate some of your tax allowance to that job or you will pay more tax) hope you can sort this out x

amersall

devils_vixen wrote: »

Ok so without knowing somone's circumstances it is ok to judge people on here is it? I was under the impression that this site was for help and advice and not to be judged!! Oops forgot to throw in the fact that I am a single parent of one and had the option to quit work when my daughter was born (which by the way I was well within my rights to!!!) but did not want to as working part time enabled me to pay my own way aswell as spend the time with my daughter! There was me thinking I was doing good only to have someone's narrow mindedness and passing judgement on me without knowing the circumstances!! Charming!!

excellent well said!:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

amersall

sue1953 wrote: »

Yes I do, you could work full-time and claim less benefits

:mad::mad:rubbish she only wants rent rebate and working tax !! she could be wanting CHILD BENEFIT (fathers unknown) FREE SCHOOL MEALS, InCOME SUPPORT, FREE DENTAL, FREE SPECS, ETC just think how much she is saving the tax payer by working EVEN IF ITS ONLY 20 HOURS :rolleyes:

alwaysonthego_2

amersall wrote: »

:mad::mad:rubbish she only wants rent rebate and working tax !! she could be wanting CHILD BENEFIT (fathers unknown) FREE SCHOOL MEALS, InCOME SUPPORT, FREE DENTAL, FREE SPECS, ETC just think how much she is saving the tax payer by working EVEN IF ITS ONLY 20 HOURS :rolleyes:

Your post is confusing Sue was replying to the op's situation, and the op does not have children and is single!

If a single mum did work 20 hours she would be entitled to free glasses and dental etc if she got wtc.

amersall

devils_vixen wrote: »

This point was an example pointing out the difference between somone paying a mortgage and going back to work full time and someone claiming benefit and going back to work full time and I have never once said that it is unfair to claim less benefits when working full time!

ISNT IT AWFULL WHEN PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?WELL I DO AND FULLY AGREE WITH YOU:T:T

Bogof_Babe

You are saying it is "unfair" that you can't get free money for choosing to work short time, instead of full time like the majority of the population have to? I think it's unfair that I can't get free food because I chose to retire early, but there you go.

I don't see why people are so reluctant to work 35 or even 40 hours a week. I'm surprised that there are so many part time jobs in existence tbh. This is not the way to put the economy back on its feet. Even well-managed job-shares must suffer from lack of continuity for the customer, and wasted time doing handovers.

If you worked 40 hours you'd still have 128 left each week. Sleep for 56 of them, and you've got 72 hours (or 10 a day) left to do whatever you want. Even allowing for weekends (32 excluding already counted sleeping time) you have 40 hours free time left for weekdays, i.e. 8 a day. Where's the hardship in that?

I think the OP is unrealistic in refusing to look for a different job where she can work full time, just because the part time job she has suits her well. Of course it does, it must be every working person's dream to have the majority of their time uncluttered with going to work. Hasn't she heard of the expression "cutting your coat according to your cloth" - i.e. if she needs more money she must earn more money, or rationalise her "wants" to manage with the money she earns. Where did this idea come from that everyone is owed a living, and a jolly good living at that, even when fit and healthy enough to earn your own?

In the OP's situation, i.e. no dependants and presumably good health, living off welfare, either wholely or in top-ups, should be viewed as a last, short term resort, just until you can get yourself sorted out to fully support yourself. The element of choice is a new departure to me, and is not what the welfare system was designed for. Yet another example of the "I'm alright Jack" attitude so prevalent nowadays.

I don't see that suggesting someone works more hours if they can't make ends meet is judgemental. Just common sense isnt it?

amersall

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Your post is confusing Sue was replying to the op's situation, and the op does not have children and is single!

If a single mum did work 20 hours she would be entitled to free glasses and dental etc if she got wtc.

annabelle cannot get wtc as she only works 20 hours the criteria is 30, the point i was trying to make was shes not asking for much compared to what she could get if she had a few kids with no partner ,and did not work at all , she is working so she is not living off the state totally

alwaysonthego_2

amersall wrote: »

annabelle cannot get wtc as she only works 20 hours the criteria is 30, the point i was trying to make was shes not asking for much compared to what she could get if she had a few kids with no partner ,and did not work at all , she is working so she is not living off the state totally

I was referring to your quote about a single mother working and not the op. So my comment was correct as a single mother or any parent infact only have to work 16 hours to get wtc.Obviously the op can't get wtc.

krisskross

amersall wrote: »

annabelle cannot get wtc as she only works 20 hours the criteria is 30, the point i was trying to make was shes not asking for much compared to what she could get if she had a few kids with no partner ,and did not work at all , she is working so she is not living off the state totally

She shouldn't be living off the state at all for pity's sake. She is fit and able to support herself.

Bl***dy hell no wonder this country is in the mess it is. Hardly surprising when everyone appears to think it's OK pick the pockets of taxpayers when they have no need to. I long for the day when the benefit system becomes too expensive and the whole darn lot is scrapped. Don't think it will be long away in this little bankrupt country.

Oldernotwiser

amersall wrote: »

ISNT IT AWFULL WHEN PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?WELL I DO AND FULLY AGREE WITH YOU:T:T

Isn't it awful when people don't read the thread properly?

Devils-vixen is a lone parent and working part time is perfectly appropriate. The OP is childless and able bodied and most of the posts have been about how it's not appropriate in these circumstances to work part time and to expect the benefits system to top this up!