Could claim benefits...but choose not to! Why?

anguk

melly1980 wrote: »

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 with

My OH had something similar. If I remembered correctly (I'm going back 24 years here) if you weren't married but had children one of you could claim a tax allowance which was roughly equivalent to the married man's tax allowance. When I had my son I wasn't working so my OH got the tax allowance on his wage, I can remember that I had to send a letter to his tax office stating that I wanted him to have the allowance and that I wouldn't claim it if I subsequently worked.

It wasn't really anything like today's tax credits, it was a tax allowance which brought an unmarried man with kids tax allowance more in line with a married mans.

melly1980

dibblersan wrote: »

http://www.cpag.org.uk/MakeChildBenefitCount/ChildBenefit_4.htm#introduced
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).

I can guarentee you with 100% certainty that in 02 I got in the region of 5000 added on to my existing tax free allowance. Now I might have the name of it wrong, but the extra tax free allowance did exist then. I saw it with my own eyes literally days ago on my P60.

Can anyone shed any light on what it might have been? Im pretty sure this is before the current Tax credits system which doesnt show on your P60.

mrsspendalot

melly1980 wrote: »

I can guarentee you with 100% certainty that in 02 I got in the region of 5000 added on to my existing tax free allowance. Now I might have the name of it wrong, but the extra tax free allowance did exist then. I saw it with my own eyes literally days ago on my P60.

Can anyone shed any light on what it might have been? Im pretty sure this is before the current Tax credits system which doesnt show on your P60.

I got this too back in 2002ish. It was called childrens tax credit I think - and it was definitely something to do with the tax code rather than an 'in your hand' payment. Then WFTC came in, then the current WTC & CTC

ETA: This relates to it, I think, as you could retrospectively claim it until recently if it was not awarded at the time:
http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/wr_bull2008_ctc_2002_3

hatomoto

i'd not think twice on any benefits that are entitled to me. I pay my dues and if there are any benefits that are due to me and a chance to get the extra income id gladly take it up as long as its within the confines of the law.

melly1980

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I got this too back in 2002ish. It was called childrens tax credit I think - and it was definitely something to do with the tax code rather than an 'in your hand' payment.

Aye, but that was my point. These payments did happen. For example now they take about 1K in stoppages off me per month and I claim about 100 quid back. Then, I simply paid 20% of 5000 quid less tax than now and had it in my pay packet. However I still got that money so these people saying that we never had x y and z in my day arent being completely truthefull.

gauly

anguk wrote: »

My OH had something similar. If I remembered correctly (I'm going back 24 years here) if you weren't married but had children one of you could claim a tax allowance which was roughly equivalent to the married man's tax allowance. When I had my son I wasn't working so my OH got the tax allowance on his wage, I can remember that I had to send a letter to his tax office stating that I wanted him to have the allowance and that I wouldn't claim it if I subsequently worked.

It wasn't really anything like today's tax credits, it was a tax allowance which brought an unmarried man with kids tax allowance more in line with a married mans.

You could claim both Child Tax Allowance and Married Couples Allowance - it wasn't a matter of one or the other. You could also claim Family Allowance for second or subsequent children. FA was like Child Benefit and was not taken off tax, but paid to (usually) the mother. I wouldn't say it "wasn't really anything like today's tax credits" - it was exactly like tax credits: extra money to cover the costs of bringing up children. Money is money, whether it comes off tax or gets paid into your account.

Child Tax Allowance and Family Allowance together were on average worth considerably more than Child Benefit is today (over twice at much at their peak). With Married Couples allowance on top of that I would have thought it would be pretty comparable to Tax Credits for most people - though with less means testing so better for the rich and worse for the poor (and a very bad deal if you didn't work and had one child as you would get nothing!!)

Sixer

There were also many in-work benefits before tax credits. Tax credits replaced Family Credit in 1988. Family Credit replaced Family Income Supplement which had been in place since 1971.

The current tax credits are probably more generous to more people than previous benefits, but to say there was nothing before them is just plain wrong.

There were less generous benefits before but there were more generous tax allowances before.

Frankly, it's probably about the same.

michelle1506

Yes I agree, some people talk far too much from their own experience on here! When I was growing up my dad went out to work while my mum stayed at home and looked after the house and us kids. These days most women have to go out to work also, to support the household. Times have changed!

GobbledyGook wrote: »

Also I strongly believe the increase in childcare is interlinked with the increase in houseprices. Years ago 1 wage could cover a mortgage so 1 parent worked and 1 stayed at home or maybe 1 worked full-time and 1 worked part-time when children were in school.

Now you need 2 full-time jobs to cover mortgage or rent so children need to be in childcare full-time leading to more demand and higher prices.

There's probably also a case to say that the increase in single-parent families have had an impact too. More 1 parent families who need to work so need more childcare therefore leading to more demand and higher prices.

I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as to say "well people used to manage so people will just have to now".[/QUOTE]

anguk

gauly wrote: »

You could claim both Child Tax Allowance and Married Couples Allowance - it wasn't a matter of one or the other. You could also claim Family Allowance for second or subsequent children. FA was like Child Benefit and was not taken off tax, but paid to (usually) the mother. I wouldn't say it "wasn't really anything like today's tax credits" - it was exactly like tax credits: extra money to cover the costs of bringing up children. Money is money, whether it comes off tax or gets paid into your account.

Child Tax Allowance and Family Allowance together were on average worth considerably more than Child Benefit is today (over twice at much at their peak). With Married Couples allowance on top of that I would have thought it would be pretty comparable to Tax Credits for most people - though with less means testing so better for the rich and worse for the poor (and a very bad deal if you didn't work and had one child as you would get nothing!!)

I'm going back further than that, Child Tax Allowance only existed for 2 years between 2001-2003 before Tax Credits were introduced. The tax allowance I'm on about was what unmarried men could claim (and I think women but only one parent could claim), and they wouldn't have the married tax allowance. My son was born in 1986, we weren't married and my OH paid single person tax, when we had my son my OH was able to claim the extra tax allowance (which roughly made his tax allowance the same as a married mans without kids).

If I remember rightly there was (FIS) Family Income Supplement if you were on a really low income but definitely no help at all with childcare. If you wanted to work you either had relatives looking after your kids, worked when your OH was home to watch them or you paid for childcare yourself.

melly1980

anguk wrote: »

If I remember rightly there was (FIS) Family Income Supplement if you were on a really low income but definitely no help at all with childcare. If you wanted to work you either had relatives looking after your kids, worked when your OH was home to watch them or you paid for childcare yourself.

We also used to live in caves, we also used to wait for lightning to strike before we could have a fire to keep warm, we also used to throw board dusters at kids in school for not doing homework. Just because we used to do something doesnt make it the right way or the best way. It may be that the previous way was right for that time and those set of circumstances, while needing a different approach now. Im not championing the current system by any stretch since it is flawed but its not as bad as some suggest.