Can they really cut your benefit if you take a job?

shegirl

jdturk wrote: »

Thing is I don't really disagree withyou but you have chosen two opposite ends to an arguement, I could turn it around and what about the layabout single parent who could work but chooses not to and the hard working individual who has worked but cannot get a job for life nor money now.

Benefits are a short term thing, not long term because people get to used to them

I completely agree.

Regarding the opposite ends of an argument though,that was because of the comments someone made about it being discrimination that those without children working 16 hours don't get WTC and that because families do it causes many unemployed to not bother working

I'm not talking about those who can't get jobs,about those who can or could or could try to work more and those who think they should get WTC for working less.If that makes sense!There's no reason for them to receive WTC at all really and they can make more life changes than parents can without having an effect on anyone but themselves


PS love the name!

dktreesea

karenx wrote: »

People with kids work fewer hours because they have children to look after. Wouldnt be fair for both parents to go out working full time and leave the children in a nursery/childminders.
So why should it be fair that people without children work part time but still get the same benefits?? They dont have any ties so should go out and work full time and support themselves

People without children don't get the same benefits. They don't get CTC. Nor child benefit.

Child tax credit - which is what those who have children get, is just for the children. We're talking about working tax credit, which surely should just be determined based on the level of income and the hours worked. I don't see why someone without children should only get working tax credit if they work 30 hours a week, but someone with children should get it if they only work 16 hours a week. There's so much underemployment anyway. Why do people seem to think anyone without children who has part time work should settle for less income than those working the same hours with children? After all, WTC is just to support the worker, not children. The latter are taken care of via CTC. Why should the two be linked in a way that keeps the person with no children in a position of relative poverty compared to the person with children?

If I followed your argument to its obvious conclusion, - i.e. people with children have the right to be better off than people without children - I would have as many children as possible, on the basis that society has deemed it okay for me to have a huge family, work a couple of days a week and pass the bill for my own living costs onto other taxpayers, via WTC.

Who's to say childless people don't have ties?

dktreesea

jdturk wrote: »

Benefits are a short term thing, not long term because people get to used to them

I think that's a bit idealistic. However much governments claim to the contrary, they have a vested interest in keeping people on benefits long term. It makes the unemployment figures look better than they are. It means they don't have to invest in any retraining, possibly a "good" thing, given they can't even fund all the school leavers trying to get into higher education, let alone ensure those who graduate get jobs once they are spat out at the other end of the tunnel.

I saw something interesting on the TV the other day. I can't remember the programme, but the reporter asked the employer "If we did restrict the right to work in Britain just to British residents and citizens, would you be prepared to pay what was necessary, i.e. a living wage (as opposed to the minimum wage) to entice British workers to come and work for you?" And he said, probably not, because at a certain labour cost, it becomes cost effective to invest in automating the processes.

SingleSue

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as everybody being able to support the kids that they have. I was married for 16 years when my ex left me with our three kids, one with severe disabilities. I didn't foresee our split before we had the children and I didn't foresee my son's disabilities.

Although I agree that far too many people rely on state benefits as a lifestyle choice, there are some of us who would prefer to be working but who do not have a choice because of circumstances beyond our control. The welfare system was supposed to be a safety net for people like me and that is what we should aim towards again.

I'm in the same boat as you, married for 16 years, together for nearly 20 years and worked from age 16 full time (age 11 part time) going part time after my eldest was born. Unfortunately, my husband thought the merits of my best friends arms were better than mine and I was left with 3 children, two with severe disabilities.

When married, I had been able to work in the evenings to fit in with my husbands work times, doctors/hospital appointments, school runs etc plus do extra shifts during the day when children/appointments allowed, at times I did almost full time hours albeit not in one go but split over slots of hours during the day and night.

Now, I cannot work in the evening/night as no childcare available and I cannot work during the day because of the sheer scale of appointments (my eldest has recently been diagnosed with a disability and it has been full on), illnesses etc (youngest son has had several hospital admissions in the last year and a bit, each time a long stay, middle son was in hospital virtually all of last week)...it doesn't make me very employable due to the amount of time off I would need to take.

At the time of having children, we could well afford them (I was a high rate tax payer and a high flyer in my career) and at no point did I envision I would end up having to rely on benefits...and do you know, I absolutely hate having to rely on the state to survive but rely on it I have to.

So when you see a single parent in the street, please do not automatically assume they have had babies just to claim benefits, or that they are lazy and ne'er do wells.....sometimes, there is a story behind why a person has to claim.

thorsoak

jdturk wrote: »

its a valid point though, people choose to have kids so they should choose to be responsible for the money they have to bring in and not rely on the state.

The benefits for people with Kids should be a short term thing, not a long term thing of which they clearly are

Are you saying that only people without kids should be entitled to long-term benefits?

angelicmary85

veggyboy wrote: »

People choose to have children and should be in a position to pay for them, not relying on the state to bump their money up.

I don't think the majority of parents start off relying on benefits.

bunny999

angelicmary85 wrote: »

I don't think the majority of parents start off relying on benefits.

About 90% claim tax credits and 99.9999% claim child benefit. I would have thought that was the vast majority.

angelicmary85

bunny999 wrote: »

About 90% claim tax credits and 99.9999% claim child benefit. I would have thought that was the vast majority.

I would say that claiming something amd relying on it are 2 very different things.

Yes a vast majority of parents claim benefits but I'm sure not all of them are up !!!! creek if they don't arrive in their bank accounts when they're supposed to, hence, not everyone relies on them.

I believe it's when you start taking them for granted, that's when you start relying on them.

bunny999

angelicmary85 wrote: »

I would say that claiming something amd relying on it are 2 very different things.

Yes a vast majority of parents claim benefits but I'm sure not all of them are up !!!! creek if they don't arrive in their bank accounts when they're supposed to, hence, not everyone relies on them.

I believe it's when you start taking them for granted, that's when you start relying on them.

So it's alright to ponce off the state as long as you don't need the money !

Great argument for abolishing the benefits.

angelicmary85

bunny999 wrote: »

So it's alright to ponce off the state as long as you don't need the money !

Great argument for abolishing the benefits.

I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make.

What I was trying to say is that claiming something and relying on it are 2 seperate things. You could apply for a tax rebate but you don't rely on getting it do you?

You seem to be a little annoyed at the benefits system and I too believe it's not what it should be but you're not going to be able to change it so why are you so bitter? Were you refused a benefit or are you one of those hard working tax payers that other people 'sponge off of?

I really must go...I have to get to work...yes, that's right...I have a job. Don't worry though, I'm not old enough to claim WTC.