" Dat`s another fine mees ya got me in "

Harry_Powell

The whole tax credit thing is a joke and the only reason they've not been scrapped is because they were the brainchild of Gordon Brown. Hopefully when we get a new government they'll scrap the whole thing. It's riddled with fraud, it's expensive to run and it's whole premis is flawed; if people want to have children then good for them but if they can't afford to have them then why should other taxpayers foot the bill?


We should be looking at reducing world population, not giving financial incentives to increase it. If we do have to support people with children, then it should be upto a maximum of 2 kids so that we're just maintaining the population and not growing it (if coupled with skilled immigration).

It's pointless building more efficient cars (for instance) if all we do is increase the population and put more cars on the road.

The_White_Horse

there is no support in this country. there is no safety net for hard working decent people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own. the measly benefits provided are barely enough to pay one or two bills, let alone all bills, food and mortgage payments.

the current system simply creates an underclass of low achievers who are content to sit in their council flat watching jeremy kyle and drinking stella.

Those that have bettered themselves are offered no meaningful support at all.

pipkin71

One thing I would add to the topic, is that although it may seem wrong that a single parent with two children can effectively be better off than a single person earning minimum wage, the single parent has children to take care of.

As the figures have been posted from another thread for how much a single mother will receive, you will see that the mother is given £60.50 for herself in those figures - although it's actually gone up to £64 something.

I can't argue about the comments that the single parent receives a decent sum, and don't agree with everyone who says they can't manage on what they receive, but you have to look at this like for like.

Yes, a single parent is better off than a single full time worker in many cases, but, if you look at what a working single parent receives, then they will be financially better off than the parent who isn't working, thanks to tax credits.

A single person not working, wont necessarily be better off than a single person working, unless perhaps, they live in a high rent / CT area, where their bills are covered by benefits, but the single worker receives nothing.

As for the argument about if benefits are set at the right level, well, I think they are very generous depending on personal situations. I'm grateful for what we receive, but I also think that the whole lot needs looking at - from WTC's to child benefit, for both those who work, and those who don't.

Graham_Devon

wageslave wrote: »

I believe money paid from the absent parent is deducted. It is not deducted however when the custodial parent is in receipt of WTC. In other words if you are a working single parent on a low wage your entitlement to WTC and CTC is not affected by anything you receive from the childs mother/father.

I just found out more about this from another board.

It's 2010 when all CSA payments will be able to be kept with no effect on the benefits.

Straight from the CSA website:

In April 2010 a full disregard will be introduced meaning any money parents receive in child maintenance payments will not be taken into account when calculating out-of-work benefits or Housing and Council Tax benefits.

So that 22k could go up considerably as they will be able to keep all the benefits coming in and all of the CSA payments coming in plus all of the council tax and housing benefit.

I knew there was something which made me angry a while ago about CSA payments! I have no idea if this is correct, but a BBC report said in 2004 the average CSA payment for 1 child from the father was £30 per week, so £120 per month.

Pobby

Harry_Powell wrote: »

The whole tax credit thing is a joke and the only reason they've not been scrapped is because they were the brainchild of Gordon Brown. Hopefully when we get a new government they'll scrap the whole thing. It's riddled with fraud, it's expensive to run and it's whole premis is flawed; if people want to have children then good for them but if they can't afford to have them then why should other taxpayers foot the bill?


We should be looking at reducing world population, not giving financial incentives to increase it. If we do have to support people with children, then it should be upto a maximum of 2 kids so that we're just maintaining the population and not growing it (if coupled with skilled immigration).

It's pointless building more efficient cars (for instance) if all we do is increase the population and put more cars on the road.

I certainly think you have a point with regarding the ever increasing world population. I don`t want to seem fascist but I do not think that allowing non working families to have as many kids as they wish is the way forward. The costs are just too much.

Another poster mentioned that JSA is just not enough. Totally agree. As self employed I wouldn`t receive it although I have paid a great deal of tax. 40 years ago I was offered what was then called a green card. I was a very young man and could have received the incapacity for the rest of my life. At times it has been hard to work due to illness but work I do. I chose, due to changes in my contract to semi retire, I am 60 now, but if there is a pickup in trade I am very prepared to go back full time.

I am attempting to qualify in the CIA A+ certification. Completely out of my field but I have a great interest in computers. I fancy a little part time computer repair business to run along side what I am doing now. Also i see it as something I can do when retired.

I really would not get a buzz sitting around watching tv all day. Yuck.

mitchaa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just for your persistance....

Taken from another post elsewhere....

From April, the benefits will be increasing.

Not including hosing or council tax benefit, a single mother with two children will receive:

Parent: £60.50

For children aged under 16: £105.18

Because you have children: £16.75

This then comes to: £182. 43 per week

Of course, there is child benefit of £30.20 per week, but as that is deducted from the above total, from 9th April a single parent with two children will receive £182.43 each week.

Total 182.43 x 52 weeks = £9486.

Don't think the above includes tax credits, though it may, so we'll forget them for a minute.

Now, as the single girl is living down here and average rent here is £590 a month for a 2 bed place, we'll use that.

£590 x 12 = £7080

Council tax band B = £1190

So far we have £9486 + £7080 + £1190.

These are pre-tax figures, so the £9486 needs tax applying to it. This works out, at just shy of £11,000 wage pre-tax.

So we need to now add £9486 income + £1486 tax which others would pay, + £7080 rent + £1190 council tax.

So far we have £19,242.

Add on her fund which she got of £750 = £19,992.

Now, this is NOT based on her actual figures as I simply do not know them, all I do know is she actually has a 3 bed terrace, not a 2 bed, which were the figures used, however, this is a one off case, probably due to lack f homes, so of course her actual home will cost more in rent.

This does not include a variety of extras, of which I cannot be bothered to list. I believe milk tokens comes close to £250 per year themselves. Let's not forget there are absolutely NO work associated costs, which we all incurr.

Happy Harry?

Graham, your maths are flawed here. As already pointed out, someone in work will have to pay their mortgage or rent out of NET salary so the whole amount needs taxing.

You have a figure of £20k or thereabouts. To earn £20k pa or £1666pm AFTER tax you would have to have a salary of around £26k. As shown here..

http://listentotaxman.com/

Some LHA rates are nuts dependent on the area. There are some ''single'' parents out there coining in £50k+ in benefits no problems whatsoever.

The point that keeps me smiling about this whole shambles is, 1 day their kids will no longer be kids and they will be left with JSA of £60pw and a 1 bed LHA allowance:D They might be living better than most hard working taxpayers now, but it will come back and bite them in the !!!! at some point down the line when its all ''cruelly'' taken away from them

treliac

chucky wrote: »

that is crazy money... without being sexist could a a single father do the same and get as much in benefit? or is not gender specific?

Course it's not gender specific. But is the single mother likely to give the child/ren, along with the benefits entitlement, away to the single father?

It's one of the reasons cited for men to move around from single mum to single mum (taking with them, at best, the threat of indifference and, at worst, neglect and abuse). On their own and without dependents, single men aren't entitled to the same level of state support.