Will I be worse off?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Some of the media have jumped on the VERY VERY unusual circumstances which may, in a handfull of very complex benefit cases, lead to a person being worse off if they worked. Sadly, these very very rare cases have also been pounced on by the doom and gloom merchants to the point where it is now widely touted that the more hours you work, the worse off you will be. In all but those very complex cases, with specific disability related benefits involved, this is simply not the case. The perpetuation of this myth, however, may push people in the OPs position further into poverty than they ever needed to be.

elisebutt65

Aphrodite868 wrote: »

Loss of ctc and wtc if she works over 16hours per week.

OMG!!! I can't believe you're advising some of this!!!!

FGS - You don't get WTC unless you do 16 hours or OVER!! (Not under)

You don't get childcare assistance without WTC - which as another OP has already said; she WILL need for training days

You don't get prescriptions etc with WTC - only if you earn under £15000 and DON'T get WTC - same rules as school dinners

Her only benefit to working under 16 hours is less money - her hubby's work will take her over the limit anyway for prescriptions and school dinner and as hubby is working over 16 hours - will qualify for WTC anyway - all adds up to less dosh in the long run

Deepmistrust

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Some of the media have jumped on the VERY VERY unusual circumstances which may, in a handfull of very complex benefit cases, lead to a person being worse off if they worked. Sadly, these very very rare cases have also been pounced on by the doom and gloom merchants to the point where it is now widely touted that the more hours you work, the worse off you will be. In all but those very complex cases, with specific disability related benefits involved, this is simply not the case. The perpetuation of this myth, however, may push people in the OPs position further into poverty than they ever needed to be.

That is far to sensible a notion for these boards. The doom and gloomers and finger waggers will be creeping out of their coffins as I speak to "prove" you wrong with the most amazing wild scenarios.:rotfl:

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

She's already stated she has a pre-school child, the job is in a school so she will be required to work TD days - she may need to pay childcare at somepoint. Just because she thinks she can work around it now, doesn't mean that all her hours (18 per week) will be covered for the full year by whatever arrangements she has made. Which is why I suggested she factored in TD days also.

3 children and only 1 is pre-school until September - don't you read!
She will have school holidays off leaving just TD days - fair enough to mention it.

I can guarantee, because she has a mortgage, and a husband in full time work, means that she will not lose pound for pound what she gains in wages. TC do not work like that. If you disbelieve it, ask her for her exact income details and do one of your scenarios. Until you do, you can't say that I can't say I guarantee it.

You cannot guarantee anything without proof or knowledge of her actual circumstances.

I've guaranteed it, I've not proved it. If you want you can (try) to disprove it. It's up to you.

Exactly you've not proved it therefore your advice is presently dangerous (likewise mine would be dangerous if I guaranteed the opposite without the actual facts).

She's already gave the number of hours, hourly rate and children. Off you go.

Well if you think the information given is sufficient to make accurate calculations - go ahead (I can guarantee there is not enough detail for it to be anywhere near accurate).

EDIT: She WON'T qualify for School meals even if she didn't work at all.

Depends where she lives - some councils make extra budget provision.

I'm surprised at you making assumptions that could affect some-ones benefits over the year.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Deepmistrust wrote: »

That is far to sensible a notion for these boards. The doom and gloomers and finger waggers will be creeping out of their coffins as I speak to "prove" you wrong with the most amazing wild scenarios.:rotfl:

I sometimes wonder if it's a sort of reverse slippery pole, where they are trying to reduce everybody to the lowest common denominator.

LizzieS_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Some of the media have jumped on the VERY VERY unusual circumstances which may, in a handfull of very complex benefit cases, lead to a person being worse off if they worked. Sadly, these very very rare cases have also been pounced on by the doom and gloom merchants to the point where it is now widely touted that the more hours you work, the worse off you will be. In all but those very complex cases, with specific disability related benefits involved, this is simply not the case. The perpetuation of this myth, however, may push people in the OPs position further into poverty than they ever needed to be.

As Cpt Haggis you will know just how many "very very unusual circumstances" magically appear on MSE as "genuine" situations".

You will also know the benefits office even employee staff to do better-off calculations before encouraging people into work - maybe it is untrue and there are people giving fake information?

wingobins

Might I just add we do live in a deprived area. My husband has always been in a low paid job previously but a safe job (jobs are scarce) until he was made redundant. He was previously on wtc and I received ctc. While he is out of work I am receiving free school meals, prescriptions etc. Even when he does start work for £7 ph (37h pw) once he is taxed on that wage and pays mortgage bills etc I cant see us earning more than £15000 annually. Hopefully one day we can work our way up, both be full time & earn more. I am happy to give up the ctc if it gets me where I want to be, but if I can earn a little more pocket money without cheating the system I would.

Wee_Willy_Harris

LizzieS wrote: »

As Cpt Haggis you will know just how many "very very unusual circumstances" magically appear on MSE as "genuine" situations".

You will also know the benefits office even employee staff to do better-off calculations before encouraging people into work - maybe it is untrue and there are people giving fake information?

They do the "better off" calculations BECAUSE some people believe these myths.

Oh, and "Cpt Haggis"??? Please explain?

Deepmistrust

Here we go, Lizzie on a wild goose chase again.

LizzieS wrote: »

Originally Posted by Deepmistrust
She's already stated she has a pre-school child, the job is in a school so she will be required to work TD days - she may need to pay childcare at somepoint. Just because she thinks she can work around it now, doesn't mean that all her hours (18 per week) will be covered for the full year by whatever arrangements she has made. Which is why I suggested she factored in TD days also.

3 children and only 1 is pre-school until September - don't you read!
Hur? The job was to start on Monday - her youngest is 3. Even assuming they start reception in September - does she know if they are going in straight away full time? If her child is three, then he/she is not a 'rising 5' and in some areas won't start FULL time until January. Even then, ALL 3 of her children may need childcare during TD days. It's not rocket science to suggest she MAY need some childcare afterall.

She will have school holidays off leaving just TD days - fair enough to mention it. Oh gee thanks:rotfl:

I can guarantee, because she has a mortgage, and a husband in full time work, means that she will not lose pound for pound what she gains in wages. TC do not work like that. If you disbelieve it, ask her for her exact income details and do one of your scenarios. Until you do, you can't say that I can't say I guarantee it.

You cannot guarantee anything without proof or knowledge of her actual circumstances. I can only go on the info provided. And on that she will be approx 3-4k better off per annum.

I've guaranteed it, I've not proved it. If you want you can (try) to disprove it. It's up to you.

Exactly you've not proved it therefore your advice is presently dangerous (likewise mine would be dangerous if I guaranteed the opposite without the actual facts). I'm sorry, I forgot it was you I was dealing with, should have spelt it out better - I've not proved it to you - I have done the calculations assuming the info she has given to be correct - of course you could do the same and try to "disprove" it though. I'll wait patiently.

She's already gave the number of hours, hourly rate and children. Off you go.

Well if you think the information given is sufficient to make accurate calculations - go ahead (I can guarantee there is not enough detail for it to be anywhere near accurate).

It's accurate for CTC and WTC purposes. Of course she hasn't said if there are any disabilities or hidden millions in the bank. Or even if she is hiding extra children under the bed, or maybe he has a secret stash of polygamous wives in the same house too. Granted.


EDIT: She WON'T qualify for School meals even if she didn't work at all.

Depends where she lives - some councils make extra budget provision.

Highly unlikely. The OP's husbands full time wage rules them out for School dinners according to national guidelines. Of course there could be some school that has a generous benefactor who has deemed all children in that school shalt forever receive free meals. Or some generous council somewhere that has money to spare. But as a rule and according to NORMAL rules she is not entitled to free school meals.


I'm surprised at you making assumptions that could affect some-ones benefits over the year.

I'm not surprised you can witter away on someones thread in a rather pathetic attempt just to argue for the sake of it. I mean !!!!!!..."there could be come council somewhere that has special rules different from the rest of the country about school meals wah wah".:rotfl:

Wee_Willy_Harris

wingobins wrote: »

Might I just add we do live in a deprived area. My husband has always been in a low paid job previously but a safe job (jobs are scarce) until he was made redundant. He was previously on wtc and I received ctc. While he is out of work I am receiving free school meals, prescriptions etc. Even when he does start work for £7 ph (37h pw) once he is taxed on that wage and pays mortgage bills etc I cant see us earning more than £15000 annually. Hopefully one day we can work our way up, both be full time & earn more. I am happy to give up the ctc if it gets me where I want to be, but if I can earn a little more pocket money without cheating the system I would.

Remember Nick Clegg, before the election, highlighting that he, with 2 kids, and a salary of over £60k, would qualify for tax credits? That's a LOT of pocket money.