Reducing Hours... Is it worth it?

Indie_Kid

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But you are sanctioned if you claim JSA and have given up your job voluntarily, so maybe there is some sanction as to voluntaril reducing your hours in order to claim tax credits ?

I wonder the same thing; but have never heard of it.

In a way, I find this thread a bit odd. Wanting / needing to cut down hours due to kids or disabilities, I can understand; but a pet? And that's comng from someone who has grown up with animals all her life.

seven-day-weekend

I am googling now to try to find out. So far I cannot see that there are any sanctions to someone without caring responsibilities or health reasons voluntarily reducing their hours in order to claim more tax credits.:eek:

If this is the case then the OP IS entitled to do what she suggests.

welshmoneylover

Actually I don't think she will get more tax credits will she?

You receive the same amount if you work 30 hours or 37 hours cos of the banding system.

The only difference will be the shortfall in wages.

Am I right here?

Indie_Kid

welshmoneylover wrote: »

Actually I don't think she will get more tax credits will she?

You receive the same amount if you work 30 hours or 37 hours cos of the banding system.

The only difference will be the shortfall in wages.

Am I right here?

Yeah, the only difference is wages shortfall.

welshmoneylover

sh1305 wrote: »

Yeah, the only difference is wages shortfall.

Therefore, she wouldn't technically be cutting hours to gain more tax credits.

Ha ha, see WML saved the day :rotfl:

Jowo_2

I agree that a reduction in hours of employment has the potential to trigger an increase in benefit and that the reason for the change, and the originator (employer or employee) is going to be irrelevant in determining eligibility, as per UnemployedAndLovingIt's observations.

But I still split my sides laughing at how an initiative to prevent poverty (introduction of tax credits) and not disadvantage those working part-time because of commitments (i.e. child care) is now considered an absolute right to address life-work balance.

Obviously, the introduction of tax credits and similar weren't predicted to be attractive to those who wish to spend more time with their pets, but hats off to the OP for boldly admitting they feel entitled to apply for state benefits paid by tax payers to improve the quality of their life. We should applaud the way the OP has been explicit about their motivation even if we don't like the message.

I wonder what Bevin would make of the change to his vision of a temporary safety net through benefits now being seen as a right and a means to prop up lifestyle preferences? But there you go, it's human nature to change circumstances to fit a particular criteria that offers advantages.

Nothing now surprises me after reading a thread on this forum where an asthmatic qualified for DLA under the cooking test on the grounds that steam from the food could trigger an attack.

welshmoneylover

Surely steam is actually beneficial to someone with asthma?

I got asthma I might have a go at claiming DLA, what do I need to do now?

Jowo_2

welshmoneylover wrote: »

Surely steam is actually beneficial to someone with asthma?

I got asthma I might have a go at claiming DLA, what do I need to do now?

Big apologies for going off thread, I'm usually a stickler for staying on topic.

No, I understand that steam from pans is potentially deadly and that opening a window to improve ventilation is even more deadlier because of the sudden drop in temperature this promotes.

Perhaps a fluffy dog would absorb the moisture?

SuziQ

Several years ago, I gave up a very well paid job to stay home with our youngest child,who is special needs. He had problems settling into any sort of childcare,had settled with a childminder but she decided to return to an office job. I couldn't face the long haul of finding another CM,and ironically my job as advising other parents with special needs children how to cope! We were also being slaughtered by the CSA at the time. I gave my job up in order to look for a job with hours opposite to my husband so we could both work whilst our child would always be with the other parent-that took 7 months. During that time our CTC went up and our CSA payment dropped (his ex was living a very wealthy life so his other children were not suffering monetarily.) We weren't much worse off than when I was working,once we got rid of the second car and I had no travelling expenses, stopped buying convenience food and occasional after school care for my oldest 2 children.
I am not proud of doing this,and yes I did use the system for 7 months,but I would do it again under similar circumstances. I'm not qute sure the OP's reasons are as valid as I felt mine were,but we all have to live by our own moral barometre and I am sure some of you will flame me too for giving up my job like I did.

Off topic,but I do regret this from a career point of view as it really affected my career in the NHS. From my son's point of view,he absolutely blossomed after being taken out of daycare and made loads of progress with me working with him during the day (I was working evenings,nights and weekends on rotation) so I can't regret it ultimately.He is now in mainstream school and holding his own there. I have to say though-without the CTC we could not have afforded to do it as my husbands wage wasn't that great.

MickBee

UnemployedAndLovingIt wrote: »

...
1stly there is no law whatsoever that makes it ''illegal to arrange your life in such a way to maximise benefits''!!
Its total and utter nonsense.

.mea culpa - when I wrote (at 12:46 am] that "it is illegal to arrange one's affairs to maximise benefits" I should have written "you can be penalised if you arrange your affairs to maximise benefits".
An earlier post of mine quoted the HMRC online handbook with a section on Notional Income, which may be relevant to the OP's case. [Regulation 14(1) of the Tax Credits (Definition and Calculation of Income) Regulations 2002]
For Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit, there are similar regulations relating to treating as Notional Capital and/or Notional Income what a claimant does not possess, for reasons including (1) Deprivation of income/capital in order to qualify for some or more HB/CTB, (2) Not claiming income/capital which is available on application (3) Work paid at less than the going rate. [References Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 sections 35 and 43, and Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 sections 26, 34 and 35.

The rest of the Post

The benefits departments have absolutely no authority whatsoever to question you as to ''why your life is in the particular way that it is when you choose to make the claim''.
The 1 and ONLY thing they can ask you about is if you quit you job.
..
They simply have to accept and base your entitlement on the life circumstances that you have on the date of making the claim.
...
And so if you choose to reduce your hours to get a better work-life balance AND because you know that you will be able to get wtc to cover those hours anyways, then you are 100% fully and totally legally entitled to reduce your hours to whatever suits you and your life (as long as you dont quit your job), and THEN when you put in a claim for working tax credits they cannot question you about why you aren't working more hours or a different job or anything like that, will simply be forced to automatically pay you the wtc money that you will be entitled to!

is unfortunately not relevant to the OP, who has already claimed Tax Credit. HMRC may consider that increasing her TC is a significant factor in intentionally depriving herself of income, and deem that she still has the higher income.