i have posted this on reply to other thread but please read

LizzieS_2

shell_542 wrote: »

I would love to go out to work and not have to rely on any tax credits what so ever. It is the only "benefit" we apply for. At the moment working around my husband's hours are impossible and the extortionate cost of child care is making it very difficult for many parents to afford to work when relying on child care. I have been looking for worthwhile jobs for over a year.

Tax credits are my income for staying at home with our children, if I was out earning the equivalent amount, it wouldn't be factored in. Its what I get for my children. The Pwc gets theirs so it seems fair to leave it untouched to me.

I agree that for many the net change in earned income v tax credits is frequently of no difference. It is still a choice though of whether to earn it or be given it. Not having a go at your choice at all - just showing it is a choice. If tax credits were abolished (as Tory's have hinted at in some of their research documents) then many people will struggle even more.

LizzieS_2

Soubrette wrote: »

Lizzie, I work part time because of the tax credits and am looking to increase my hours now that the children are older - no shame in that part of things imo Of course if they are suddenly taken away then I'll have to get a better paid job and cut down outgoings some more

Sou

I wasn't suggesting it was shameful to collect TCs. Comments were aimed at those who did not like TCs being included, yet did not want to avoid TCs being a large part of income.

shell_542

It's not much of a choice for us at the moment. If I took on a full time or part time job, after paying out childcare, we would actually be worse off than now. Even with the help we would get through working tax credits for childcare costs ... then factor in some of the money given to us to subsidise the ridiculous costs of childcare would be taken away from us to go towards child support.

This is a whole new debate, the costs of childcare etc, but if tax credits were taken away from us we would be in trouble. A lot of people are in the same boat. I don't like the fact that we have to rely so heavily on them. Hopefully for us it wont be too much longer.

Blob

Seem to have mistout on this as been out!

It seems that some people are of the firm opinion that money paid by the gov to help someone with the cost of brining up a child, can then be taken from that person and given to someone else to help with the cost of a child that has nothing to do with them. Very simply put, thats twaddle, it is like saying that OK I have a bill to pay but as someone else is getting help from the Gov then they can pay it, what planet are you from?

Just because someone's relationship goes out of the window, and some time later they manage to have a further one, then this new person has to pay for the last relationship. Think about it and then be honist, its rubbish. As for setting the household income against the income of one person, and then trying to call that fair, bunkum!!

I personall get no help from the Gov except my War Pension, for injuries recieved in defence of the Relm, and they take some of that. The result is that this is now subject to written questions in Parlement as if they were DLA then the CSA could not touch it. Personally I did not fight to keep the CSA free, and I doubt if you ask anyone in Afgan or anywhere else that teh bullets are flying you would get a different answer!

kelloggs36

Some people seem to think that it is okay to pay less for their real children because they have step children.

Blob

When you start to take money from one child that has nothing to do with the other child, how is that paying less? It is not down to the child to pay for the other child, how ever you want to add it up.

If you go down that road it is just PWC's trying to grind money that they have no right to from thier ex's new partnet and thier children! In my opinion and it is only an opinion that is theft, pure and simple, and if people are OK with being a thief, who am I to comment, that should be down to a Judge!

kelloggs36

Because they are getting a DISCOUNT for the step children!!!!!!!!!!!! Overall, the natural children lose out.

LizzieS_2

Blob wrote: »

When you start to take money from one child that has nothing to do with the other child, how is that paying less? It is not down to the child to pay for the other child, how ever you want to add it up.

If you go down that road it is just PWC's trying to grind money that they have no right to from thier ex's new partnet and thier children! In my opinion and it is only an opinion that is theft, pure and simple, and if people are OK with being a thief, who am I to comment, that should be down to a Judge!

How is taking money from the nrps earnings (by giving a nrp discount for step-children) not also theft?

Blob

I am not talking about what the CSA take from an NRP, they would take every penney and more if they could, they regually take people below what they would get on beniefit anyway.

To take money that dose not belong to the NRP and would not be available if the NRP was not in the relationship with a person that has children is taking money from those children and as such is thrft. As the CSA has no remit to take money from anyone other than the NRP. They also have no intention of giveing that money back to teh NRP at any time, it is therefor 'Theft'. You are a lawer work it through for your self!

Blonde_Bint

:wall:

well your doing yourselves proud today i'm well confused now, paying her this and him that and so much of a percent of that for her and discounts over here for him????? :eek: i'm glad we only have one childs worth of issues to contend with. If I had a couple of kids with someone else I dont think I could cope.