Tax credits dropped from £500+ to £42 - help!

RuthMarianna

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

And spare a thought for married working couples with no children - have a laugh and see what we're 'entitled' to.

No children = no benefits.

It may sound harsh but if YOU can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

To me the people who choose not to have any children are the selfish ones as who will look after them when they are old or sick? - someone else's son or daughter.

pink_princess

RuthMarianna wrote: »

To me the people who choose not to have any children are the selfish ones as who will look after them when they are old or sick? - someone else's son or daughter.

I don t expect my children to care for me when I become old or sick .I hope I have earned and saved enough to allow me to be able to pay for care myself.

Infact I can't think of anything I would dislike more .I want my children living their lives not be wasting it taking care of me.

Or perhaps the NHS that I've paid into for years can pay for my care.

MissMoneypenny

RuthMarianna wrote: »

To me the people who choose not to have any children are the selfish ones as who will look after them when they are old or sick? - someone else's son or daughter.

The next lot of muggers and thieves are also someone elses son or daughter.

MissMoneypenny

anguk wrote: »

But you are on benefits, tax credits are a welfare benefit, so if you're receiving them you're getting benefits.

Not aimed at you teabag, but I can never understand why some people complain about others receiving benefits when they themselves get tax credits. Tax credits are a welfare benefit paid by the state just the same as JSA, IS etc.

teabag29 wrote: »

Yes they are benefits you're right but they are to top up wages of low earners that work for a living as opposed to benefits like jsa, income support etc which aren't just a top up but fund all living expenses

I didn't think you had to be working to receive child tax credits?

melly1980

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I didn't think you had to be working to receive child tax credits?

Your right, you dont. The vast majority of tax credits are from the CTC side of it which you get based on the number of children you have and has nothing to do with working or not working.

teabag29

Doesnt seem anyone can do right. If your on unemployment benefits your accused of being a job dodger etc etc. If you have a job and earn a low wage and get top ups from tax credits your getting a free ride and if you have a high income then you shouldnt complain or your classed as ungrateful for what you have. Ha ha ha nobody's a winner it seems. I'm gonna solve all my problems tonight anyway when I win the lottery ....wont need tax credits then

StormyWeather_2

If there wasn't the TCs top up, who would do these minimum wage or low paid jobs? Many are valuable/worthwhile jobs. As others have said, employers would be forced to offer a higher salary than at present. But there'll still be that poverty trap where being on benefits(JSA/IS) is financially better than taking the work.

Not everyone is capable of doing a degree and starting a career path. Some people will always be the ones who do the unskilled lower paid jobs.

dktreesea

StormyWeather wrote: »

If there wasn't the TCs top up, who would do these minimum wage or low paid jobs? Many are valuable/worthwhile jobs. As others have said, employers would be forced to offer a higher salary than at present. But there'll still be that poverty trap where being on benefits(JSA/IS) is financially better than taking the work.

Not everyone is capable of doing a degree and starting a career path. Some people will always be the ones who do the unskilled lower paid jobs.

And why shouldn't employers pay a decent wage for a decent day's work? Why should they be able to get away with paying peanuts, resulting in other tax payers having to supplement their employee's wages? After all, they are the ones making money (presumably) out of that employee, not the rest of us.

Sure, some jobs would end up going off shore, but there's plenty that wouldn't. Let's see, care workers, supermarket employees, anyone employed in the hospitality industry, school support workers like janitors/class room assistants/school bursars/canteen workers, people working in retail, cleaners (including those working for the NHS via an agency). Surely whoever is benefiting from the work being done should be the one to pay for it, not other taxpayers, regardless of how much the other taxpayers earn.

Sixer

I'd agree low wages are a significant part of the problem.

And there are even fiscally neutral ways around it: upping the minimum wage and reducing employers NIC contributions by the same cost, for example, would reduce the tax credit burden but not increase costs for employers.

I also agree that open-ended childcare tax credits (particularly in two parent families) paid to workers who earn little more than the cost of childcare plus transport to work is not a good thing.

tobysmummy_2

dori2o wrote: »

43K household income and you're on the breadline????????

Try living on 17k. We still have a decent life. Have one cheap holiday a year, still manage to pay the mortgage, and other bills and have little luxuries every now and then.

We simply choose not to 'keep up with the Jones's'.

Sorry if you're offended, but with a HH income of £43k, if your 'on the breadline' then you really need to look at your spending.

We don't "keep up with the jones'" far from it in fact, but our childcare and mortgage are very expensive and I have to put fuel in the car as it's an essential part of my job (I have to travel alot)

Everybodys income/expenditure is different, and nobody should judge simply because our household income is more than others. Surely it's entirley possible that our essential living expenses are more than other peoples? We pay nearly £900 a month in childcare alone - that's more than another mortage - so please reserve your judgment before you know all of the facts.

offended I'm not, I realise that on the face of it it appears that we should be able to comfortably afford a lot of things, but the truth is we can't and it's not because we splash out on things we can't afford.

But having read alot of other posts on this forum, I understand that alot of people come under attack when not all of the facts are known, perhaps if I gave a detailed breakdown of everything we HAVE to pay out (which I'm not going to do), people may be more understanding, but then again maybe not.

It's very narrow minded to believe that just because some people can live comfortably on a smaller income, those on a larger one should be able to also. It's not what you bring in, it's what you have to pay out that makes the difference - and it's not about being lavish or excessive, it's about what you MUST pay in order to work.

I'm not after anyones pity or scrutiny here, perhaps my use of "on the breadline" was offensive to others who are income-wise worse off than us, but who can judge that until you see what's leftover once all of the bills have been paid?

I'm didn't read on after your post and won't read anymore because people's belief that with our income we couldn't possibly be struggling is quite offensive to me, and makes me feel as though I've done something wrong. Just trying to remind myself to reserve my own judgment when I read future posts and form an opinion when I don't know all of the facts...