What should we do?

McKneff

Whilst I agree totally with the last part of your post, if the government put up the minimu wage another say £1 and hour, how many places would be closing down because they couldnt afford to pay it, commodoties would rise so people would be buying less and making do.

The goverment IMO should be looking at greedy landlords, the rental costs of property are horrendous even moresso when greedy landlords put up the rents when the LA is paying it.

dktreesea

McKneff wrote: »

Whilst I agree totally with the last part of your post, if the government put up the minimu wage another say £1 and hour, how many places would be closing down because they couldnt afford to pay it, commodoties would rise so people would be buying less and making do.

The goverment IMO should be looking at greedy landlords, the rental costs of property are horrendous even moresso when greedy landlords put up the rents when the LA is paying it.

The government can't have it both ways. To solve the greedy landlords problem means re-introducing rent controls. If that happens the buy to let market will falter, because it won't be worthwhile to be a landlord. That would still be okay, provided the government then stepped in and built enough social housing, rented at prices someone on the minimum wage raising a family could afford.

But no, the government don't want to go down that track. Instead the LHA is kept high to give landlords an incentive to make their properties available to those on low incomes, otherwise the poor wouldn't be able to afford to rent those same properties.

And their pleading that they can't afford to build more social housing? Fiddlesticks! If you are on minimum wage and supporting a family where I live, you would pay something towards your council rent, so some income, however paltry, for the government/taxpayer. If, however, they are in private accommodation, the LHA for our area means someone on the minimum wage with a family of four, son and daughter, one over 11, would get around £800 a month subsidy for their housing. The government could borrow enough to build two flats for the amount of interest £800 a month would cover.

As for the minimum wage, our local coffee shop owner was telling me the other day if the government raised the minimum wage to £8 an hour (he has two full time staff) he would have to raise the prices for his coffee from £1.80 to £2.30 a cup just to cover the wage increase. What's so wrong with that? At least his workers would have a living wage, and not have to resort to Mr/Ms Other Taxpayer just to be able to live. Sure, some businesses would fail. Some would shut up shop, reasoning that the prices they would now have to charge would make them uncompetitive. But the vast majority would take the increases on the chin and pass the cost onto the consumer.

Busyizzy_2

Thanks you for your replies and honest opinions. I actually totally agree with you, it is morally wrong and it doesn't sit comfortably with me. However we have 2 very young kids, and at the moment my partner works 8.30 - 4, 5 days a week, second job almost every evening till 7 and at least every other weekend 9-5, sometimes more often and sometimes sleepovers which means he's gone from 9 sat morning till gone 5 sun evening. We have both always worked from a young age and have never claimed benefits before. I guess I'm just fed up of people who aren't working as hard as us being able to claim more benefits and seemingly enjoying a better lifestyle where both parents actually get to spend time with there kids. I personally feel that my partner is missing out a lot at the moment due to his long working hours. However your right, we're both able to work and morally we should. It just seems that the government are penalising us for working and even more so for staying as a couple. Still undecided about what to do ......

OrkneyStar

Busyizzy wrote: »

Thanks you for your replies and honest opinions. I actually totally agree with you, it is morally wrong and it doesn't sit comfortably with me. However we have 2 very young kids, and at the moment my partner works 8.30 - 4, 5 days a week, second job almost every evening till 7 and at least every other weekend 9-5, sometimes more often and sometimes sleepovers which means he's gone from 9 sat morning till gone 5 sun evening. We have both always worked from a young age and have never claimed benefits before. I guess I'm just fed up of people who aren't working as hard as us being able to claim more benefits and seemingly enjoying a better lifestyle where both parents actually get to spend time with there kids. I personally feel that my partner is missing out a lot at the moment due to his long working hours. However your right, we're both able to work and morally we should. It just seems that the government are penalising us for working and even more so for staying as a couple. Still undecided about what to do ......

And remember your kids are still young so there is nothing wrong with wanting to see if you can somehow spend more time as a family! I appreciate that people don't want to promote benefits as a lifestyle, and tbh I don't think you are trying to do that, but we also need to remember the value of being with your kids and family as much as you can! Hope you work things out xx

Oldernotwiser

Bear in mind that if you were to drop down to having only one job, you would be in a more vulnerable position in a redundancy situation.

mrsspendalot

I would do a calculation on the turn2us site for your partner dropping his second job and you increasing your hours above 16 per week. This would then (I think) entitle you to claim help with childcare costs as you would both be working over 16 hours a week. This might help?

Busyizzy_2

Good point mrsspendalot, I will do that. I'm a bit confused about the working tax credits it claims we would get in the I quit work, partner quits second job instance. I thought you both had to be working over 16 hours to get working tax credit, or in the case of only one of us working does only that person have to work more than16 hours?

mrsspendalot

Busyizzy wrote: »

Good point mrsspendalot, I will do that. I'm a bit confused about the working tax credits it claims we would get in the I quit work, partner quits second job instance. I thought you both had to be working over 16 hours to get working tax credit, or in the case of only one of us working does only that person have to work more than16 hours?

You both have to work 16 hours or more to get childcare costs considered.

Only one of you needs to work over 16 hours to get WTC but you will not get childcare help.

It seems that as you are doing 15 hours, you are under the required hours to get any help and this could be why you are feeling the pinch with childcare, and by doing 1 more hour per week you may find you get help (70% of costs I think it is about to change to)

I think they are going to change the rules soon so you have to be working over 24 hours between you soon also, which you would be

Jowo_2

Busyizzy wrote: »

..
I then did it as only my partner working one job at 14k, me not working at all. For this it claims we should be getting £61.98 a week working tax credit (still confused how that could be), £98.84 per week child tax credit, £8.48 a week council tax benefit and £71.31 a week housing benefit.

If this is correct, which I'm not convinced it is, it reckons we should get a total of 14,849.77 a year in benefits / tax credits. This is obviously more than the 12,000 we make by my partner working a second job, and me working at all, therefore suggesting we're better off with just my partner working one job earning 14 k a year.
I'm actually hoping this is wrong. Would the citizens advice bureau be able to work things out exactly for us do you think?

Out of curiosity, what's the scenario like if your partner retains the 12k job rather than the 14k? Is the lower paid one less hours or is it the same but just pays less.

Contact the Citizens Advice Bureau to see if they can double check this scenario. There should be other benefit calculators online, including an LHA one on your local council website. Obviously you'd need to be very sure that the figures are correct that show that your household is better off if you reduce your employment hours.

Also, you should double check the position on LHA - there are proposals to recalculate rates based on the lowest third of market rents as its currently based on the average. This is because the govt is introducing revised calculations based on the 30th percentile of local rents, rather than the 50th.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/lhadirect/lha-emergency-budget-news-2010.htm

It's a shame that currently the benefit system has loopholes which mean some households are truly much better off if they don't work, or work less, but blame the system, not the individuals.

zagfles

Busyizzy wrote: »

I've just been on that turn2u website and have done sone rough calculations. It claims that on our current income we should be getting 71.06 per week child tax credit, so hopefully the £40 a month they quoted us is wrong. They also said we should be getting £3.61 a week housing benefit.
I then did it on an income of 6 k for me and 14 k for my partner, eg no second job for him. It said we should get £98.84 per week child tax credit, £26.05 a week housing benefit and £17.09 a week working tax credit. I'm not sure why/how we would get working tax credit though as I didn't think I was eligible if only working 15 hours a week?
I then did it as only my partner working one job at 14k, me not working at all. For this it claims we should be getting £61.98 a week working tax credit (still confused how that could be), £98.84 per week child tax credit, £8.48 a week council tax benefit and £71.31 a week housing benefit. If this is correct, which I'm not convinced it is, it reckons we should get a total of 14,849.77 a year in benefits / tax credits. This is obviously more than the 12,000 we make by my partner working a second job, and me working at all, therefore suggesting we're better off with just my partner working one job earning 14 k a year.
I'm actually hoping this is wrong. Would the citizens advice bureau be able to work things out exactly for us do you think?

WTC only needs one of you to be working 16 hours (as you have kids). This will change to 24 hours for couples in 2012.

I can't see how it's possible for you to be better off with your partner just doing the one job, this doesn't make any sense with just tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit in the mix. All these are tapered and never taper to more than 100% so it shouldn't be possible (except maybe when you add in travel to work costs etc).

I could understand it if just you gave up (cos you'd save the childcare which you don't get help for). Or if you were getting SMI help (mortgage interest) as that isn't tapered. But in your situation, there is no way you should be better off with your partnerearning less, try the calculations again. It might be close but the max taper with TC/HB/CTB is 95.5%