Anyone else similar to this??

katrina1979

Just a wee query to all who receive CTC. I work f/t, have a 2 year old and a stay at home hubby. I earn £21kp/a and at the moment receive £16 p/w ctc and £20 c/b. We have a mtg so receive no HB/CTB. I am grateful for the benefits we do receive and i am just querying if this is what other in a similar position receive also?

I have found that when i worked less hours i was much as such, but i really love my job also so not sure really what i should be doing?But it is really tempting to be spending more time at home and still be in the same financial situation. Have others found this?

dmg24

katrina1979 wrote: »

Just a wee query to all who receive CTC. I work f/t, have a 2 year old and a stay at home hubby. I earn £21kp/a and at the moment receive £16 p/w ctc and £20 c/b. We have a mtg so receive no HB/CTB. I am grateful for the benefits we do receive and i am just querying if this is what other in a similar position receive also?

I have found that when i worked less hours i was much as such, but i really love my job also so not sure really what i should be doing?But it is really tempting to be spending more time at home and still be in the same financial situation. Have others found this?

Is that supposed to make sense?

katrina1979

It means that i was actually just as well off when i worked less than f/t, when you should expect to be alot better off workinf f/t. Does thar break down help??

McKneff

I read it as when the op worked less hours she was not any worse or better off.
ish..........
(in other words, much of a muchness :rotfl::rotfl:)

dmg24

McKneff wrote: »

I read it as when the op worked less hours she was not any worse or better off.
ish..........
(in other words, much of a muchness :rotfl::rotfl:)

I wondered if that was what she meant. Think the OP has been making up her own phrases!

kerrydrobertson

my husband and myself are in the same situation. We receive pretty much the same and is so frustrating the fact that if my husband worked less or if i got a full time job we wouldnt be any better off as we would not receive that much towards the childcare.

katrina1979

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

Don't any of you realise that by getting CTC and doing the "magic" 16 hours per week that you are all becoming more and more dependent financially on this government, (and this is what they want). You should be taxed less in the first place and not have to go begging for CTC to supplement your salary, CTC is a benefit that you receive, not a tax credit.

Sorry i dont mean to sound stupid:o but what do you mean here? Also i wish at the 16 hours bit, i have to do 40

seven-day-weekend

I personally don't see why the Government should fund childcare at all (other than for the very poorest parents)....but hey ho, those are the rules and I don't blame people for claiming what they are entitled to.

katrina1979

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

Katrina

When CTC first came about not talking about you but just in general, there where a lot of people working full time hours eg. 40 hours per week. A lot of them then realised that they could reduce their hours to minimum 16 hours a week instead, and then found that the CTC made their money up to near enough what they were earning full time. This only worked of course if you had children, or were a single parent with children. It also worked better if your pay was near to the minimum wage or unskilled, not if you earned a higher hourly rate. One of my friends was the manager of a nursing home, he employed nursing care assistants, cleaners etc, etc. Most of them worked 40 hours per week. When the CTC came out, the vast majority who he had working for him including the cleaning staff all went to 16 hours per week. He was livid one month when doing the wages, a cleaner who had 7 children and did the 16 hours per week brought home take home pay more than him in that month, surely this is wrong. I personally feel that this government brought out CTC because they want the majority of families to be financially dependent on them, whereas if they were taxed less at source they would have more money in their pockets.

Ok i get what you are saying now. Thanks. I actually somtimes feel like a mug for working f/t but thats just what i am used to doing. I could cut back a little and not affect me much finacially but certainly i would never be able to get away with 16 hrs !! (i wish):D

sunnyone

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I agree with you and it is the government that are allowing all this to happen.

Me and OH 30 years ago, personally took a pride in being able to afford to have 3 children, and pay for them ourselves, if we could not afford them we wouldn't have had that many.

It just seems in this day and age you are rewarded financially for breeding like a rabbit. More than may be 3 children and then the financial reward should be stopped.

I am in my early forties and we had a child because we could afford it, the only help we got was child benefit and I think its wrong that today people think that tax credits are not benefits and plan for there lives depending on these benefits to sustain there families.

When the cut comes those that need these payments just to service there credit are in for a huge shock.

katrina1979

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I agree with you and it is the government that are allowing all this to happen.

Me and OH 30 years ago, personally took a pride in being able to afford to have 3 children, and pay for them ourselves, if we could not afford them we wouldn't have had that many.

It just seems in this day and age you are rewarded financially for breeding like a rabbit. More than may be 3 children and then the financial reward should be stopped.

That why i only have one child and will only have one child. I do not have to claim child care for my child as my family help with this.
Yes peoples can receive alot of benefits but the point to my post is that there is very little incentive to work f/t when the Government seems to substitue the wage anyway.
I have not taken this route and went back too work when my child was 5 mths old.