Another one of those benefits threads

carolt

I agree to some degree, sjay - in many areas, there is not that much difference between non-working (or barely working) single parents and couples in the same situation. However, there are areas where there are advantages to being a single parent - specifically point 3 of the points I made above.

carolt wrote: »

3. As a single parent, if you choose not to work, you won't even be made to think about getting a job and losing a minute of precious time with your children until the youngest one is 7 years old. But if you work, you get maternity pay to cover 1 year only - then there is zero financial support from the state to enable you to spend time with your child, meaning that millions of parents have to face the heartache of leaving their children to go to work. Some working couples work shifts to fit around the children and still afford to eat - and so hardly ever see each other, and only see their children when exhausted from a full day at work.

In my opinion, 1 year olds are best looked after by their parents, and financial incentives should offer all parents of pre-school children, whether single or not, equal incentives to stay at home with their children. Equally, once children start school, there is no reason why single parents should get some special dispensation meaning they don't need to work whilst their child is at school. Part-time jobs do exist - after all, most mums in couples I know manage to find them - and moreover, it would help the single parents get back into the job market longer term, and keep their skills up-to-date - realistically, if anyone is out of the labour market for 7 years (or more if they have more than 1 child), they are going to be virtually unemployable afterwards. Which is not doing them - or the country and our budget deficit - any good at all.

Also, what your post missed was we currently have a system where benefits are worked out on a family basis, but taxation is worked out on an individual basis. This means working couples lose out twice over - they pay tax on their earnings and they do not qualify for benefits, even if the mother, as is often/usually the case, works few hours or not at all. Her tax allowance is wasted; yet because her partner earns above a certain threshold (is it 25K or does it vary depending how many kids you have? - not clear), they get nothing more than the basic child tax credit of £42 ish a month - a huge drop for couples like the one in the OP who would otherwise get a huge same in LHA, plus council tax benefit, free school meals, free laptops, EMA, etc etc etc.

This was the problem in the OP - she stood to lose if she stayed in a relationship BECAUSE her OH's income was treated as hers, for benefits purposes. And yet her unused tax allowance (or the number of her kids) could not be taken into account when calculating his tax bill. THIS IS SO SO WRONG.

Basically, looking at the entitledto website, I discovered that if I was on my own and worked the hours I do now, I would get back more or less as much in benefits as me and my OH do now, him working full-time and me part-time.

Equally, if I gave up work entirely, became a devotee of daytime telly, and he dropped his hours so he was working 16 hours a week instead of his full hours (thus bringing us below the 25K threshold (don't know if that is the maximum level, but it's the one I tried as the basis of my experiment messing around on the entitledto website...), we'd also be more or less as well off as we are now.

The reason? Well, our housing costs are large, and in either scenario, our rent would be picked up 100% by LHA. Our council tax is not far short of £1500/year, and travel costs to work for both of us probably another £3500/year. All taken out of taxed income.

And that's before we add on all the extra perks you get for being a no/low earner eg free prescriptions, school meals, laptops etc.

If we were low earners, it might make more sense if a few top-ups with benefits = our income. But we're not! OH is on something like double average income (yes, I know it depends whose figures you use); my hourly rate is about 5 times the minimum wage!

If even people like us are better off separated/not bothering to work, THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM.

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Don't worry carolt, I don't find it shocking that you're in favour of scrapping a benefit after you've finished receiving it.

No - I'm in favour, as I said, of not penalising the children. My children would suffer, make no mistake about it, if universal child benefit was removed. That money is in my monthly budget - not unreasonably, as universal child benefit was one of the cornerstones of the welfare state. Not unreasonably, as even the Tories gave no whisper in their manifesto that it might be removed (wonder why? - because they realised their core support in middle England would be none too happy to see that go... lying !!!!!!!s).

The argument you made, and which I agreed with, was of not incentivising people to have children they can't afford. That doesn't work, though, when talking about children who are already born - removing a vital benefit for their families does not disincentivise their parents to have them - it's a bit late for that, when they are already there! All it does is penalise those (existing) children, which I made it very clear I am not in favour of.

Saying that a benefit WILL be removed in future is different - as people know well in advance if they are going to have a baby, they can then take that into account when deciding whether or not to have another child. It was that that I agreed with.

Which is why your typically snide comment is wrong.

LydiaJ

I keep seeing the comment that it's ok to remove benefits (possibly only future benefits) because people shouldn't have children if they can't afford to bring them up. Well, in that case then nobody should ever have children at all. No matter how affluent their present circumstances, no would-be parents can guarantee before conception that they will continue to be able to provide for their kids until they are grown-up. Life has a nasty habit of throwing curve balls that nobody foresaw.

I do agree on a moral level that it is irresponsible to have children if you have no means of providing for them. However, it's extremely difficult to make the tax and benefit system enforce this. If you have an adequate safety net for people like Sue and me who were well able to afford our kids without help when we had them, but whose circumstances have changed since, then people will know that the safety net is there when they are making decisions about how many children to have.

What is the alternative - give stacks more benefit to poor people who used to be prosperous and nothing to those who have always been poor? Yeah right, I can really see that one working.

Somebody (I think it was Cleaver) also reminded us that removing benefits from single parents would not actually mean that children would stop being born to people who can't afford to provide for them. He asked what should be done about these children and pointed out that taking them all into care would hardly help either the budget or the social fabric of the nation. Perhaps some of these "cut all benefits for single parents" posters should reply to his question.

lemonjelly

sjaypink wrote: »

Yes but working couples (either one or both) and working singles can claim hefty amounts of LHA/HB too.

I get to see a lot of peoples financial cirumstances day in day out, and I can honestly say there is nothing I have seen which makes me think singles are partiularly better off. I am happy to be proven wrong

The only way a single parent would be much better off is down to the recent changes in maintenance disregard (which is imho a shocking move, and most likely something which will be reversed prtetty soon anyhow) but, tbh this seems to be something which doesn't effect my opnion too much as most LPs get really quite small amounts of maintenance.

It seems obvious to me the real problems with our system are:

LHA. Awful. Will try not to rant now

Huge differences between 0 or 1 child people or couples compared to those with loads of kids.

Abuse of tax credits system by the 'self employed' :cool:

I honestly think the whole 'better off splitting up' theme is a red herring.

sjay, bits in bols get a phenomenal thumbs up from me. Could not agree more...

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

No - I'm in favour, as I said, of not penalising the children. My children would suffer, make no mistake about it, if universal child benefit was removed. That money is in my monthly budget - not unreasonably, as universal child benefit was one of the cornerstones of the welfare state. Not unreasonably, as even the Tories gave no whisper in their manifesto that it might be removed (wonder why? - because they realised their core support in middle England would be none too happy to see that go... lying !!!!!!!s).

The argument you made, and which I agreed with, was of not incentivising people to have children they can't afford. That doesn't work, though, when talking about children who are already born - removing a vital benefit for their families does not disincentivise their parents to have them - it's a bit late for that, when they are already there! All it does is penalise those (existing) children, which I made it very clear I am not in favour of.

Saying that a benefit WILL be removed in future is different - as people know well in advance if they are going to have a baby, they can then take that into account when deciding whether or not to have another child. It was that that I agreed with.

Which is why your typically snide comment is wrong.

Nah, you just know that removing this benefit won't impact you so You're all for it. Your whole argument is that you don't want to impact children already born but don't mind impacting children who have not been born yet, hence my comment.

I want this benefit removed regardless of even though it may negatively impact me. That's the difference between me and you.

Harry_Powell

LydiaJ wrote: »

I keep seeing the comment that it's ok to remove benefits (possibly only future benefits) because people shouldn't have children if they can't afford to bring them up. Well, in that case then nobody should ever have children at all. No matter how affluent their present circumstances, no would-be parents can guarantee before conception that they will continue to be able to provide for their kids until they are grown-up. Life has a nasty habit of throwing curve balls that nobody foresaw.

I do agree on a moral level that it is irresponsible to have children if you have no means of providing for them. However, it's extremely difficult to make the tax and benefit system enforce this. If you have an adequate safety net for people like Sue and me who were well able to afford our kids without help when we had them, but whose circumstances have changed since, then people will know that the safety net is there when they are making decisions about how many children to have.

What is the alternative - give stacks more benefit to poor people who used to be prosperous and nothing to those who have always been poor? Yeah right, I can really see that one working.

Somebody (I think it was Cleaver) also reminded us that removing benefits from single parents would not actually mean that children would stop being born to people who can't afford to provide for them. He asked what should be done about these children and pointed out that taking them all into care would hardly help either the budget or the social fabric of the nation. Perhaps some of these "cut all benefits for single parents" posters should reply to his question.

There are two different arguments here. The former, with carolt as its cheerleader, is the outrage at all benefits for single parents - we've already established that carolt doesn't mind receiving her benefits and is quite happy for future children not to receive them, she just doesn't like people getting more than her. The latter, which is my argument, is that all benefits should be targetted at those who need them, rather than everyone receiving them. We have finite resources and they should be aimed at those who need them, not the likes of carolt and the rest who have become accustomed to them.

As an aside, I find it laughable for the OP to moan about the open handed way the state treats one group and then defends to the hilt the handout she receives. The irony completely escapes her that a lot of people will be looking with outrage at the large amount she receives in benefits each month.

sjaypink

Sorry carol, but after spending all my day on finance, I have TC award notices and LHA allowance rates coming out my ears :mad::rotfl:, so I feel I have to take you up on this . I feel like you're my new Graham Devon type project- I'm on a 1 woman mission to lower your blood pressure

carolt wrote: »

Basically, looking at the entitledto website, I discovered that if I was on my own and worked the hours I do now, I would get back more or less as much in benefits as me and my OH do now, him working full-time and me part-time. .

I would estimate £350 net income after housing costs, plus any child maintenance....

(You earning gross £20k pa (£25ph x 16hrs pw))

carolt wrote: »

Equally, if I gave up work entirely, became a devotee of daytime telly, and he dropped his hours so he was working 16 hours a week instead of his full hours (thus bringing us below the 25K threshold (don't know if that is the maximum level, but it's the one I tried as the basis of my experiment messing around on the entitledto website...), we'd also be more or less as well off as we are now..

2 parent, 1 working family, on £25k gross pa would have after housing cost net income of just under £400 pw

carolt wrote: »

The reason? Well, our housing costs are large, and in either scenario, our rent would be picked up 100% by LHA. Our council tax is not far short of £1500/year, and travel costs to work for both of us probably another £3500/year. All taken out of taxed income.

And that's before we add on all the extra perks you get for being a no/low earner eg free prescriptions, school meals, laptops etc..

Travel costs are of course a factor which is often overlooked.... I don't know whether £3500 pa is average or what... never really thought about it.

Free school meals, laptops etc are for the non working so to *cough* benefit from those you'd have to ditch your hubby and your job....

....current Income Support /TC rates for LPs, 3 kids is about £250 pw, again, plus any maintenance.....

carolt wrote: »

If we were low earners, it might make more sense if a few top-ups with benefits = our income. But we're not! OH is on something like double average income (yes, I know it depends whose figures you use); my hourly rate is about 5 times the minimum wage!

If even people like us are better off separated/not bothering to work, THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM.

Taken the clues you have given, I would estimate your net income after housing costs atm to be iro £700 per week, again, based on, as all the above guestamations are- £200 pw rent, £30 pw council tax, 3 kids.

So, in my theoretical world, you are at least a couple of hundred £££ a week better off working as you are currently :A

As for whether benefits rates across the board are still too much.... :cool::p:)

PasturesNew

sjaypink wrote: »

Yes but working couples (either one or both) and working singles can claim hefty amounts of LHA/HB too.

Most working singles, who have worked all their life (because they're single and it's all down to them) don't know this.

I probably could claim, but the forms are huge. So you don't.

Also, if you're self-employed (like I am), you don't have the figures/proof to be able to put in a claim as you've not done your tax return ... and you keep plodding on, hoping that "today things will turn a corner".

And, mostly, if you do look into it, it seems you can only get about £5/week, so it's not worth it.

The entitled to website's a pile of old sh1te - it's a shame you can't key in all the data onto one page, then use sliders to change circumstances to see how it changes. Also, it does give you the impression you can claim, but when you try they say "nope".

carolt

sjaypink wrote: »

Sorry carol, but after spending all my day on finance, I have TC award notices and LHA allowance rates coming out my ears :mad::rotfl:, so I feel I have to take you up on this . I feel like you're my new Graham Devon type project- I'm on a 1 woman mission to lower your blood pressure




I would estimate £350 net income after housing costs, plus any child maintenance....

(You earning gross £20k pa (£25ph x 16hrs pw))



2 parent, 1 working family, on £25k gross pa would have after housing cost net income of just under £400 pw

Travel costs are of course a factor which is often overlooked.... I don't know whether £3500 pa is average or what... never really thought about it.

Free school meals, laptops etc are for the non working so to *cough* benefit from those you'd have to ditch your hubby and your job....

....current Income Support /TC rates for LPs, 3 kids is about £250 pw, again, plus any maintenance.....


Taken the clues you have given, I would estimate your net income after housing costs atm to be iro £700 per week, again, based on, as all the above guestamations are- £200 pw rent, £30 pw council tax, 3 kids.

So, in my theoretical world, you are at least a couple of hundred £££ a week better off working as you are currently :A

As for whether benefits rates across the board are still too much.... :cool::p:)

Sadly, your guesstimations were a fair bit out, both on overestimating my income (as a teacher, I get about a third of my year 'off' in holidays, but, not unreasonably, my hourly rate pays me for my legally required minimum holiday pay, but does not pay me for all of those weeks off; it wouldn't help me much to be working for all the time that my kids were off school, either (and jobs do exist teaching in the holidays if I wanted them), as I'd just have to pay out virtually all my salary on childcare costs...); and on underestimating my outgoings.

Sadly, £200/week will not get you a family home anywhere near me; obviously we could move a lot further out, but that would add corresepondingly to my OH's commute costs into London, so would not really be a saving. And our council tax costs are sadly rather higher than £30/week. Plus I can think of numerous areas where we currently spend but would not have to if on benefits; eg my DD has a school trip next month costing £150 of taxed income. If on benefits, that would be free. As would all the other numerous school trips my 3 go on and which I have to pay for. Let's add free school meals, free prescriptions, saving towards university costs, etc into the bargain. And add costs of childcare so I can work, costs of work clothes and upkeep (dry cleaning etc). I could go on and on.

All free, free free if you're on benefits.

But please don't abandon your aim of reducing my blood pressure, sjay!

Incidentally, someone who works in the field told me yesterday that the current maximum rate of LHA available to those who don't work with large families is...96K a year.

That is so wrong I just don't have a clue where to start.

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

I feel like you're my new Graham Devon type project- I'm on a 1 woman mission to lower your blood pressure

I need to get it up again