We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Could claim benefits...but choose not to! Why?
Comments
-
Wow, rude much?! I've never mentioned what I spent my money on.
Nor have I proclaimed to know what YOU spend your money on. It is you that has personalised my comment and applied it to yourself. I merely said that there are millions of housholds that claim tax credits and in these housholds there are cars, holidays, big TV's ect. I then asked if you think that a top tax payer would feel aggrieved at where their tax is going.
,simply that I lived on a budget and saved which many people do. You have no idea if I have a car, go on holiday, have a big TV or whatever..
Never said I did, however it was you who complained about such comments so Im willing to hazard a guess that you do fit into such catagory.
,I work full-time and claim what i'm entitled to. Just because someone is on a low income doesn't mean they don't work as hard..
No one said they dont but they should by default just get as big of an income just given to them in the click of a finger from the tax payer.
,FYI I doubt I would care: If I was on a higher income then I can't see why I would concern myself with what others spend tax credit money on, it's small fry compared to the total amount of tax paid. .
Its not small fry when you multiply it up by all the families that get it. Its far from small fry.
,I'm not quite sure why you're attacking me.
im not. Like I said, it is you that has personalised it. I have simply commented on the system that in my opinion is far too rewarding for a welfare system. Im a big supporter of the welfare state as it happens but Im not a big supporter of providing SKY, holidays, cars etc from tax that is supposed to be taken and put into education, health, security, housing etc.Salt0 -
and I don't think anyone's saying that anything that anyone chooses to do is wrong.
what unselttled me was the statement that someone would have to become unemployed if they were no longer being given money to care for their children.
you say that many families can't manage on just one income - then what if (heven forbid) one of the members of that family were to die?
i presume they would have to sell the house and find somewhere more affordable - when I was made redundant and my husband left me many years ago - this was something that I had to do.
I have now decided i don't want to be that vulnerable again so i live in a little flat that is well beneath my current means but is enough for me. I am happy and don't need anything bigger.
even if I did, if i couldn't afford it i would manage without - the difference between NEED and WANT
if i couldn't afford to care for my children, then i wouldn't have them, i wouldn't expect someone else to pay for them to be looked after, or to pay for me while i looked after them (unless it was the father)One of the hardest of all life lessons is this:
Just because I feel bad doesn’t necessarily mean someone else is doing something wrong.
Just because I feel good doesn’t necessarily mean what I am doing is right.0 -
dibblersan wrote: »even the idea of working part time and your husband caring for them part time as he is able would make more sense to me
that being said, it's your life and your choices. i just don't understand them.
In an ideal world that would be perfect but I have a 3hour round trip to get to work so I basically travel 15hrs a week. A part time job on top of that would still me basically working full time for a fraction of the money.
My partner looks after the children from 5.20am - 8.00am then from 5.00pm - 6.15pm and he does all the housework, makes the dinners etc so he does his fair share.
I couldn't go part time as well because the local authority that I work for is gunning for redundancies and as we are on a recruitment freeze I imagine part timers will be looked on less favourably.0 -
its not always that simple though, there are 8 years between my children because we waited until we could afford a second baby. Then ex changed his mind and sodded off when ds was 2. Before that point the only benefit we claimed was CB and the lowest amount of ctc (both were born pre ctc) for a year which didn't even cover the loss of the married person tax allowance or what ever it was called.dibblersan wrote: »if i couldn't afford to care for my children, then i wouldn't have them, i wouldn't expect someone else to pay for them to be looked after, or to pay for me while i looked after them (unless it was the father)
I thought I could afford to pay for my children, but I didn't have a crystal ball and didn't know that ex would leave us.0 -
In an ideal world that would be perfect but I have a 3hour round trip to get to work so I basically travel 15hrs a week. A part time job on top of that would still me basically working full time for a fraction of the money.
My partner looks after the children from 5.20am - 8.00am then from 5.00pm - 6.15pm and he does all the housework, makes the dinners etc so he does his fair share.
I couldn't go part time as well because the local authority that I work for is gunning for redundancies and as we are on a recruitment freeze I imagine part timers will be looked on less favourably.
i was made redundant a while ago and i moved 70 miles to be right next door when offered a job at min wage - yes it was a bother and yes it meant i was 70 miles from my oh, but my min wage covered my rent and food and was better than being dependant on the state.
if needs must then so must we.
an unpopular attitude i know.
sorry for my apparent languageOne of the hardest of all life lessons is this:
Just because I feel bad doesn’t necessarily mean someone else is doing something wrong.
Just because I feel good doesn’t necessarily mean what I am doing is right.0 -
its not always that simple though, there are 8 years between my children because we waited until we could afford a second baby. Then ex changed his mind and sodded off when ds was 2. Before that point the only benefit we claimed was CB and the lowest amount of ctc (both were born pre ctc) for a year which didn't even cover the loss of the married person tax allowance or what ever it was called.
I thought I could afford to pay for my children, but I didn't have a crystal ball and didn't know that ex would leave us.
and my mother was married to an accountant with the 2 of us and then he went and died.
i never said life was simple
I also never said the way you lived your life was wrong, just not a way that is compatable with my understanding of pride, independance and the difference between need and because it's easier.One of the hardest of all life lessons is this:
Just because I feel bad doesn’t necessarily mean someone else is doing something wrong.
Just because I feel good doesn’t necessarily mean what I am doing is right.0 -
but not every family can manage long term on just one wage long term.
It's a sad fact of modern day life, especially if you have a mortgage.
But the OP is managing now on one wage and her share of the childcare bill would pretty well balance out with her husband losing IB if he cared for the children.
I don't think that people should make their life choices (whether that's to work, with childcare paid for, or to give up work and claim ) based on being subsidised by the state.0 -
I think the expectations of most of the population are way out of kilter with reality. This has not been helped by successive governments throwing money at people. Surely we should all strive to be Self-sufficient and not rely on the state to hand out money to us?
Some people work hard at school, go on to university, gain qualifications, in order to make a better life for themselves, and the family they may have in the future.
Some other people may bunk off school, leave as soon as they can, maybe get a minimum wage job, if any, then constantly moan that they don't earn enough to get the latest iphone, tv, sky package, cars, etc.
Our welfare system encourages people to take the easy path, have kids they cannot afford, work part-time instead of full time. How on earth can it be fair that the people making these choices, can have a similar disposable income to those who have worked long and hard to get a high earning job?
If you don't earn enough to afford kids, then don't have any. If one parent stayed home to look after the kids, then maybe there would be more jobs to go around, and the state wouldn't have to pick up the tab for childcare. You want kids?, then pay for them and look after them yourself. I have already paid for my kids, I don't want to pay for yours too.
As for the old chestnut that child tax credits have been around for years under a different name, this is codswallop! I have never qualified for any benefits, other than family allowance which my wife recieved, and the married tax allowance. Family allowance was about £10 per week, the married tax allowance never amounted to much. Certainly nowhere near the £1000 a month or more of childcare tax credits. I never qualified for any extra help, despite never even getting close to average earnings, so I had to live within my means. This seems to be an outdated concept today.
House prices have risen because people are willing to pay grossly inflated prices for property, over stretching themselves in the process. A house is only worth what someone is willing to pay, and if no-one buys, then the price will come down.
OK, rant over, but we should all take responsibility for ourselves and our families, not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.0 -
eyeinthesky wrote: »As for the old chestnut that child tax credits have been around for years under a different name, this is codswallop! .
Its true.
I saw it with my own eyes 3 days ago on a p60
It was called something like childrens tax credit (I wasnt married at the time so couldnt have been married mans allowance) and it added ~5000 onto my tax free allowance giving me at the time about 9500 to earn before paying tax.
Im not saying that there was a system that gave as much as this one (clearly not true) but there was a child tax credits system. You just might not have been aware of it. I wasnt until reading these boards and seeing an old P60. Its just something that happened.
Other than that, a lot of good points in your post thgat I agree withSalt0 -
http://www.cpag.org.uk/MakeChildBenefitCount/ChildBenefit_4.htm#introducedIt was called something like childrens tax credit (I wasnt married at the time so couldnt have been married mans allowance) and it added ~5000 onto my tax free allowance giving me at the time about 9500 to earn before paying tax.
Child benefit introduced
Child benefit has now been an established part of the social security system in the UK for almost thirty years.1 It was phased in from 1977 to 1979 by Labour, replacing family allowances and child tax allowances. Child benefit was, therefore, intended to improve the distribution of resources both within the family (by increasing the amount payable to mothers) and between families (by being fairer than child tax allowances).One of the hardest of all life lessons is this:
Just because I feel bad doesn’t necessarily mean someone else is doing something wrong.
Just because I feel good doesn’t necessarily mean what I am doing is right.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards