Reducing Hours... Is it worth it?

dktreesea

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?

Just looking at it from the point of view of the WTC, that may well be right. But there are other benefits to consider, like council tax and housing benefits. Reducing your income could well increase these, and quite considerably, because the claw back is quite high, around 65%. So say you are on minimum wage, working 37 hours a week, and cut back to 30 hours, so lose approx £37 a week in income, or whatever the actual figure is. But that could increase you housing benefit by 65% of the £37 you have lost and council tax benefit could also increase. So it doesn't follow that your net income goes down £37 a week, just because you have moved from a five day week to a four day week.

Ultimately, the problem with the benefit is that the minimum wage is set so low that many people on the minimum wage are entitled to get some kind of benefit. The minimum wage should be set sufficiently high so that working 30 hours a week on the minimum wage means you earn sufficient not to be entitled to any benefits at all. £10 an hour sounds about right.

jdturk

dktreesea wrote: »

£10 an hour sounds about right.

Nicely plucked figure out of the air there, I think WTC pay people upto earning £7.50 an hour so that would be a more realistic minimum

dktreesea

jdturk wrote: »

Nicely plucked figure out of the air there, I think WTC pay people upto earning £7.50 an hour so that would be a more realistic minimum

I was working it out based on working 46 weeks a year (assuming two weeks statutory holidays and four weeks annual leave, but, probably unrealistically, not allowing for any sick leave at all when working out unworked days) for £16,040 a year, (I think this is the current ceiling, but might be out by a few hundred pounds or so), so around £350 a week, for 37.5 hours worked a week. So around £9.30 an hour, before you are cut out from working tax credit altogether. I rounded it up to £10 an hour because I realised leaving out days off due to sick leave is unrealistic.

frustrated-in-bolton

Jowo wrote: »

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 just wanted to thank you for this. I haven't logged into MSE since the day I posted this as I felt totally attacked. In my opinion, single people with no kids get nothing. We work and work and work and if we try to improve out WLB, we get called lazy. A few years ago, I had mental health problems due to working all hours at a job I hated. I wasn't sleeping, I was depressed... I wanted to improve my work life balance before that happens again.

As it happens, I didn't reduce my hours, I learned to drive which meant that I was no longer commuting 10 hours per week. I'm still working 37 hours, I still have no money by the middle of the month but at least I'm happier.

I don't intend to have children, so I won't get maternity leave or any type of flexible working, so why shouldn't I try to improve my life while I can?

For the record, my Mum worked through my entire childhood, part-time and full-time, and then, when I was fifteen - BANG - a breakdown.

Work to Live not Live to Work!

sunnyone

frustrated-in-bolton wrote: »

I just wanted to thank you for this. I haven't logged into MSE since the day I posted this as I felt totally attacked. In my opinion, single people with no kids get nothing. We work and work and work and if we try to improve out WLB, we get called lazy. A few years ago, I had mental health problems due to working all hours at a job I hated. I wasn't sleeping, I was depressed... I wanted to improve my work life balance before that happens again.

As it happens, I didn't reduce my hours, I learned to drive which meant that I was no longer commuting 10 hours per week. I'm still working 37 hours, I still have no money by the middle of the month but at least I'm happier.

I don't intend to have children, so I won't get maternity leave or any type of flexible working, so why shouldn't I try to improve my life while I can?

For the record, my Mum worked through my entire childhood, part-time and full-time, and then, when I was fifteen - BANG - a breakdown.

Work to Live not Live to Work!

You need to work to pay for your life and to pay for your dog, we all have "tragic" stories that we can recount for sympathy but we dont, you didnt in your first post but because you dont like THE TRUTH your bringing it out now.

I believed your OP to be a joke, I hoped that it was but I now see that this country is so entrenched in apathy and the benefits culture we have here, thats sad.

exil

Tax Credits, as the name suggests, are in fact a discount off income tax (except at very low incomes or for those with large families).

A single person on £12,500 a year is going to be paying more in Tax and NI than they get in tax credits.

One might have many reasons for reducing hours - to care for someone (child or elderly relative), because the job is getting on top of you. Or you might get another job at a lower salary, again for many reasons (it's a shorter commute, you can see the writing on the wall, or whatever). Or even to look after your dog!

Perhaps tax credits should be merged with the income tax system - it would be cheaper to administer, wouldn't involve so much form filling, and would avoid sanctimonious posters attacking people who get them.

Elaine_Wilson

I've just read through this thread and, frankly, am surprised at a number of the comments. An awful lot of anger is directed against benefit claimants when it would be put to better use influencing the legislators.

Many of you feel the benefit rules are unfair. So what have you done about it? Have you made your views known to your MP? As many are newly in office now would be a good time to do this.

Perhaps I should declare an interest right now. I claim Working Tax Credit - it is my entitlement. I have been working for nearly 44 years and this is the only benefit I have ever claimed.

Let's step back a bit and look at the wider picture. I don't have figures before me but I understand that very few refuse the child benefit. A significant proportion of these could not be considered poor by any means.

Take another benefit - the Child Trust Fund. The main beneficiaries seem to be the better off. Poorer taxpayers do not contribute extra to the fund.

Expanding the definition of a benefit to cover any government subsidy we can count ISAs as a benefit to those who save. This is sensible as those people will probably not need other benefits later on. But even here we have the situation where the richer members of society, having put the maximum into these accounts, are pressing for changes to the rules of pension funds so that they can save even more in a tax exempt environment.

Government often subsidises businesses that invest in capital expenditure. Should we therefore vilify the small self employed worker who buys a new van and finds that he can recover the whole of the cost from the government because of the interaction of tax allowances with tax credits.

I earn my living completing tax returns. Part of my job is ensuring my clients claim everything the law says they are entitled to. I see nothing immoral in that. In fact, my professional indemnity insurers would take a dim view if I did otherwise.

If you don't like the system, lobby to get the system changed.

To the OP, from what you have posted you have not breached any of the rules. The government has decreed that 30 hours a week is a full time job. There is no need for you to work in excess of this until the rules change. Go for it.

mumps

I thought I would just add a new view on this. I have several members of staff who have reduced their hours and they have been able to do this because of WTC. This has enabled me to take on unemployed people to cover the reduced hours. I think the money saved on JSA is probably greater than the amount paid out in WTC. Works out well I think, shares the available work out.

AnxiousMum

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 ?

Would make sense actually, but then, that would mean that they very likely don't sanction!

Thanks OP - your post gave me a hell of a chuckle after a good but extremely long work day.

If you are concerned about your dog being on his own for too long - there are companies out there who provide doggie day care, walks, playing with other dogs etc. Hmmm, actually, kinda like day care which alot of us parents have to use 'cos we can't of course, leave our children at home unattended while we go to work and they're not in school.

If you're looking for a better quality of life - I find hobbies and interests outside of work provide that quite nicely for me!

dktreesea

Elaine_Wilson wrote: »

Many of you feel the benefit rules are unfair. So what have you done about it? Have you made your views known to your MP? As many are newly in office now would be a good time to do this.

It's not so much the benefit rules that are unfair, but rather the huge employer subsidies provided to employers by the government, via keeping the minimum wage unrealistically low. What a crazy system when someone who is working full time, albeit on the minumum wage, bringing up two children, qualifies to have not just some of their rent paid, but ALL of it paid by other taxpayers, because they earn under the "applicable amount", i.e. the amount regarded by the government as the minimum you have to earn to raise two children, before the benefits start to reduce.

And then, to add insult to injury, is it taxes from those businesses that benefit from such low minimum wages (supermarkets and the banks top my list) that pay the housing benefit? Oh no sirree, - it gets paid by other taxpayers "fortunate enough" to be earning "enough" not to qualify for any help/tax rebates. And why is that? Well, according to the government today, there's not enough tax being raised from corporations to even cover the country's interest bill, let alone welfare.

It's about time the government legislated to make the minimum pay high enough to mean that working 30 hours a week or more gives you enough income not to qualify for benefits.