Pregnant with 1st baby. Do we get anything? what about the £190 grant?

pipscot

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

Whoop-de-f**ing-doo. £30 a week EMA. I can raise two kids on that. What was I thinking, not going to do my A-levels?! Jeez, even without husband and kids in the picture, I could not pay my rent, feed myself, travel to/from college, buy the necessary course materials and pay all the bills on £30 a week.
I had to leave home at 16, no-one would feed me and pay my bills so I could study. I tried for a year, but because I had to work full time and study full time, my grades were pants because I didn't have the time to study.
If you look, I'm actually planning to go back to college in a few years, but not everyone is privileged enough to have someone support them.

I didn't have anyone to "support me" while I qualified for uni! DH and me both worked full-time (my children were school-aged at the time) and I also did a part-time OU course (most universities will accept these) then went straight to uni without the year in college. I could not have managed an Access course without changing my job (which I didn't want to do) and A levels are not an ideal option for mature students because they don't come with the flexibility to work alongside.

It is perfectly possible to go to uni no matter what level of income you're on. The thing is - you do have to give up something (income, time with family etc). It is not a matter of being "lucky" as you implied in an earlier post or of being "privileged" - it is about hard work and sacrifices.

Good luck with your ambitions to go uni in a few years - I genuinely hope it works out for you. In the meantime please stop assuming that everyone else is "privileged" - maybe they worked ** hard to get where they are today.

[P.S. - when you get there - please don't expect to spend 3 years of your life "dossing about" - it really doesn't work that like that!!]

Blue22

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I wonder if any of the 'powers that be' have actually sat and worked out various scenarios......

I believe the 'powers that be' do work out various scenarios but the only people that analyse that data and respond, are people with vested interests in a particular section of society. So we have policy groups fighting for single mothers or low income families or the disabled but no one seems too concerned about Mr and Mrs Average, with 2+ kids, working long hours and trying to support themselves.

I think the government is just relying on those families not understanding the system too well so they carry on working (and paying taxes) without causing a fuss.

fannyanna

pipscot wrote: »

I didn't have anyone to "support me" while I qualified for uni! DH and me both worked full-time (my children were school-aged at the time) and I also did a part-time OU course (most universities will accept these) then went straight to uni without the year in college. I could not have managed an Access course without changing my job (which I didn't want to do) and A levels are not an ideal option for mature students because they don't come with the flexibility to work alongside.

It is perfectly possible to go to uni no matter what level of income you're on. The thing is - you do have to give up something (income, time with family etc). It is not a matter of being "lucky" as you implied in an earlier post or of being "privileged" - it is about hard work and sacrifices.

Good luck with your ambitions to go uni in a few years - I genuinely hope it works out for you. In the meantime please stop assuming that everyone else is "privileged" - maybe they worked ** hard to get where they are today.

[P.S. - when you get there - please don't expect to spend 3 years of your life "dossing about" - it really doesn't work that like that!!]

:T Well done you.

I never went to uni and to be honest I'm not driven to give it ago - especially not at the same time as having kids and working so I applaud anyone that can do that.

Just to flip the coin and give an alternative view you don't NEED to go to uni to succeed in life. I never went and I'm doing ok. Richard Branson never went and look at him (P.S I am in no way comparing myself to RB :rotfl:).

I'm not saying that uni is a waste of time or anything like that but just saying you don't HAVE to have a degree to get by in life.

fannyanna

Blue22 wrote: »

I believe the 'powers that be' do work out various scenarios but the only people that analyse that data and respond, are people with vested interests in a particular section of society. So we have policy groups fighting for single mothers or low income families or the disabled but no one seems too concerned about Mr and Mrs Average, with 2+ kids, working long hours and trying to support themselves.

I think the government is just relying on those families not understanding the system too well so they carry on working (and paying taxes) without causing a fuss.

Well said!

pipscot

fannyanna wrote: »

:T Well done you.

I never went to uni and to be honest I'm not driven to give it ago - especially not at the same time as having kids and working so I applaud anyone that can do that.

Just to flip the coin and give an alternative view you don't NEED to go to uni to succeed in life. I never went and I'm doing ok. Richard Branson never went and look at him (P.S I am in no way comparing myself to RB :rotfl:).

I'm not saying that uni is a waste of time or anything like that but just saying you don't HAVE to have a degree to get by in life.

Agree with you on this one - like DeeMarie, I wasn't able to go straight from school due to family circumstances but always wanted to. I'm glad I did it but would never suggest it was for everyone. :):):)

AnxiousMum

On an income as a single person, with one adult non dependent child living at home, and one child in university, and three children under age 12 living at home - I would have the following in benefits: (I have used my actual salary, day care costs, rent, council tax as an example)

CTC / WTC - 9406.65 p.a.
CT Benefit - 353.47 p.a
HB - 5487.56 p.a.
CB - 2462.65 p.a.
For a staggering total of £17714.22 p.a. on top of my wages - which, take home, is £30,650 pa, plus commissions - in the region of an additional £1k (but always paid the following April). Not bad for 36 weeks work in the year, however, I get paid over the 12 months, so don't have any months where no income. On top of this though, I also have CM payments of £4000K per year for my second eldest son, but this is disregarded as income for any of the means tested benefits.

IF I was a single parent, I would also have an additional £500 per month in CM from my partner - so an additional £6K per year - making my now available funds each year, £40,650 pa. Not bad on a £16,750 p.a job.

Currently, our family take home annual money is in the region of £36,900 pa as a couple, no hb, no ctc.

Add onto that the £500 p.a. or so in CTC (10.40) per week, and CB of £2462 pa, and we have a total spendable income of £39,862.00 p.a. I still get the £4K child support for second eldest, so that's £43,862.00 p.a. total.

So - single parent spendable monies each year: £40,650 pa
As part of a double working parent home: £43,862.00 p.a. total

Hmm, £3K difference?

Looking at that figure - my OH keeps £500 to pay for his petrol, car insurance, odds and ends throughout the month, as a single parent, I wouldn't have that expense out of the family income (but as per above - would be receiving that from him in CM payments) (but based on that expenditure for him alone each month, I would actually be £6K ahead again each year as a single mum!)

Son at Uni - would qualify for student grants/university bursary which could come to anywhere between £3K and £6K per year for another two years - instead, we support him out of the family money and child support for him which is included in my 'family' income.
Kids in primary school wouldn't get free school dinners - they prefer something from home anyways, or heck, I'd be able to afford to pay for them anyway.
School transport - two in highschool (one now, one in September) would each get the free transportation to school.
Prescriptions/dental/eye exams for myself - Borderline on earnings for getting them for free, but could certainly apply to NHS on an individual case basis.

School field trips - likely could get away with a half price for them due to household income and crying poor to the HT.

Yep as time goes on, my kids will grow - wouldn't be any change for the next five years anyway - as that's when the next one will leave high school. The incoming CM from ex that is being paid for second eldest, well that goes straight from my bank account to my son's anyway - so still no financial loss there for me.

Unbelievable eh?

zagfles

gauly wrote: »

I had a look and you would almost certainly qualify for housing and council tax benefit. So, based on a £700/month house in our area you would qualify for about £53/week housing benefit but no council tax benefit. However, I realised that I added in the working tax credits twice in the previous calculation, so the corrected version is:

Income on £43k with 4 children (from next april):
After tax/NI £31,459
Benefits: £0
Total income £31,459

Income on 2x£7k with 4 children:
After tax/NI £14,000
Working tax credit: £760
Child tax credit: £10,735
Child benefit: £3,146
Housing benefit: around £2.7k
Council tax benefit: £0
Total income around £31,341

Any further corrections welcome - this is very interesting!!

On £43k with 4 kids there will still be some CTC. Not a lot, maybe £500 or so (£427 on this year's rates).

Child benefit is not going for higher rate taxpayers till 2013. And I really can't believe it won't be tapered - if it does actually happen.

HB amount doesn't make sense - HB is tapered on net income (after tax/ni/tax credits) so if take home is the similar, HB will be similar. Max difference 65% of the difference in net (after tax/ni/tax credits). Unless the first family have savings...

You don't get free school meals if you get Working Tax Credit, but you might get help with prescriptions, dental costs, glasses, etc.

Yes you certainly would, the limit is about £15k gross, so the second family would get free prescriptions/dentist etc, the first wouldn't.

One of the above comments said wisely that you won't have 4 children forever and will be much better off later in life - worth bearing in mind, I think.

By which time he might be retired. Maybe an idea to plough as much as possible into a pension - bearing in mind that pension contributions reduce your income for tax credits purposes - so that's quite some "tax relief":). Particularly if he makes maximum use of the disregard (although that's being cut over the next few years).

zagfles

Blue22 wrote: »

I believe the 'powers that be' do work out various scenarios but the only people that analyse that data and respond, are people with vested interests in a particular section of society. So we have policy groups fighting for single mothers or low income families or the disabled but no one seems too concerned about Mr and Mrs Average, with 2+ kids, working long hours and trying to support themselves.

I think the government is just relying on those families not understanding the system too well so they carry on working (and paying taxes) without causing a fuss.

Yes, Gordon Brown was the master at this. Continually banging on about "hard working families", when in fact he was screwing "hard working families" and rewarding "bone idle" families

zagfles

Blue22 wrote: »

I agree with most of your post but have to disagree that it was Gordon Brown, or Labour who are the polital party that want us all to be equal. Middle income households, ie approx 20k to 40k, were treated more favourably under Labour than under the current government. The same was true in the 80s under Mrs Thatcher, middle income families suffered the most.

All governments have been moving in the same direction. Reduction in family tax allowances and increases in benefits. That makes lower income and middle income families more equal, which of course results in a poverty trap where, if you have a few kids and are on a low income, it's simply not worth working (or working more).

Until the current govt has the guts to get rid or, or redefine, the "child poverty" targets, this will continue.

melly1980

zagfles wrote: »

By which time he might be retired. Maybe an idea to plough as much as possible into a pension - bearing in mind that pension contributions reduce your income for tax credits purposes - so that's quite some "tax relief":). Particularly if he makes maximum use of the disregard (although that's being cut over the next few years).

Zagfles, we have had the discussion regarding pensions previously. On the maximum use of the disregard how would I go about this.

For example last year my official salary for TC was about 39.5K (41.5K in reality but 2K went into the pension). For this year my tax credits will be based on last years actual however I have chosen put an additional 4K into the pension pot from April this year to April next year. This means my actual for this year could be as low as 35.5K. Do I simply let them adjust this next year and base next years on 35.5K?

Also, if they change to UC in 2014 I am obviously going to get nothing. What is the sensible way to "play the game in 2013". From what I can see I may as well ignore trying to reduce my 2013 - 2014 salary as the UC will stop anyway?

disclaimer - melly1980 does not hold Zagfles responsible for any advice given