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

lizzybear_2

melly1980 wrote: »

Do you not think they have a point at all? The welfare state was initially there to provide for needs not for peoples wants. Most people know someone on tax credits. I know plenty myself and it is the norm for these people to have cars, holidays, big TV's ect. Do you not think the tax payer has the right to say "hang on....why is my tax paying for peoples holidays / TV's etc??

Im not calling you because I myself have taken tax credits when on a decent wage. Its not a critisism, Im just asking you if you think they have a point. Put yourself in their shoes where you are paying loads of tax, receiving nothing (in cash terms) and then seeing those that are claiming having all the nice things that you have. What would your opinion be then?

My dad is a higher rate taxpayer and business owner so he pays a fair wack in tax and he's really not that bothered, the system is what is is. I know multiple people who keep their working hours and income level under certain figures to continue getting tax credits but i'm not sure if there is a way round it as the thresholds have to be put somewhere.

pipscot

melly1980 wrote: »

absolutely, and Im glad that you dont appear to have taken my post as an attack because it isnt. Its just a statement of fact. A system that used to give a proportion of your tax back is now a system that gives more than the tax some pay. How to sort it? I really dont know. One thing I do agree with is a comment made (dont know if its on this thread) but this system was created to bribe people into voting for New Labour. It enabled employers to not pay a living wage, while topping up peoples wages all courtesy of the tax payer.

I agree with this. Low wages are definitely a problem - also the increasing lack of full-time jobs available in some areas means that some people are stuck with part-time wages.

Tax credits are now needed to top up wages to afford living costs and paying less tax would not solve this problem since these people aren't paying much tax anyway (certainly not as much as their tax credit payments).

Oldernotwiser

pipscot wrote: »

I agree with this. Low wages are definitely a problem - also the increasing lack of full-time jobs available in some areas means that some people are stuck with part-time wages.

Many people are in part time jobs because they've worked out that it isn't worth working full time because their money is made up by tax credits.

Tax credits are a terrible system on so many fronts.

dibblersan

lizzybear wrote: »

My dad is a higher rate taxpayer and business owner so he pays a fair wack in tax and he's really not that bothered, the system is what is is. I know multiple people who keep their working hours and income level under certain figures to continue getting tax credits but i'm not sure if there is a way round it as the thresholds have to be put somewhere.

I'm a higher rate tax payer, as is my oh, and we are. it's something that we've discussed when he was told that with his condition and with the difficulties he has managining it, he could stop working.

he didn't and doesn't want to, and won't until/unless he NEEDs to.

AimeesMum_2

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

and due to the size and the difference in my partners pay, as it would be income based, I gave up on it.

I didn't know ESA was income based? My partner is on IB and this isn't income based. Can someone clarify this? x

GobbledyGook

I think there should be Government run nurseries. That way the huge profits that are made by nurseries would at least be coming back into the countries coffers. Then over time more could be opened, charges could be reduced and although less would come back in less would be paid out and childcare would be affordable.

There is a nursery local to me whose owners have massively, massively increased their profits since the introduction of tax credits because of the increased charges. They have a waiting list always and insist on full weeks for all children are are making over £11,000 a WEEK not including the Breakfast Club, the after-school care, holiday care, early starts & late pick-ups and the charges for taking the new school starts for the half day when they first start for half days only. They only have 4 nursery staff who are not students and 2 office staff so they must be absolutely coining it in. Government run that would put so much back into the coffers of the country.

MONEYPENNY

I am surprised nobody has mentioned this:

- David Cameron (a VERY rich person) claimed DLA for his late son Ivan, would you class him as the dole-scrounging layabout they are trying to stereotype all disabled people with right now?

What a hypocritical scumbag that man is , his son must be looking down on him in shame

Doom_and_Gloom

There are two types of ESA.

• Contribution-based
• Income based.

I didn't have enough NI contributions because I was 19 when I got really bad and you need two years worth of NI (I did A-Levels so didn't work full time for long). Although there was the possiblility of me getting ESA on youth rules (due to not having the time to get enough NI due to being in education) to be honest and so I may have got contribution if that was the case. Unfortunatly the forms were so much and the stress of all the hospital appointments at the time and not knowing what was going on didn't help me. Hrm, really there are a lot of reasons I didn't apply for it in the end . May look into if I can get it on youth rules but I'm not sure, there may be a time limit thing on it.

lovetowinacar

An observation:

Nursery/childcare fees have risen well above the rate of inflation although the actual childcare workers appear to earn little above the minimum wage. The owners of the nurseries are taking large profits. They know that they can charge high rates because childcare tax credits will pay for a large percentage of it. Many reasonably well paid working people with large payments from tax credits towards their huge nursery costs do not see this as "benefits" and quite happily run down others who are labelled as "benefit scroungers" yet they take almost as much.

Perhaps the weekly amount of childcare tax credit needs caping? The percentage has recently changed, maybe it should be lowered again? Perhaps if "benefits" were really only kept for the most vulnerable in Society and not given out to families on higher earnings (child benefit) means testing for winter fuel allowance then maybe we could all pay less tax?

The there are the landlords who have increased rental charges much higher than inflation because they can. They know that housing benefit will pick up the cost/part of the cost for a large number of people working or not and so rents kept increasing. Now the cap may mean landlords think carefully before increasing further?

So childcare providers and landlords have done very well from benefit payments to people.

Just a thought.

AimeesMum_2

lovetowinacar wrote: »

An observation:

Nursery/childcare fees have risen well above the rate of inflation although the actual childcare workers appear to earn little above the minimum wage. The owners of the nurseries are taking large profits. They know that they can charge high rates because childcare tax credits will pay for a large percentage of it. Many reasonably well paid working people with large payments from tax credits towards their huge nursery costs do not see this as "benefits" and quite happily run down others who are labelled as "benefit scroungers" yet they take almost as much.

Perhaps the weekly amount of childcare tax credit needs caping? The percentage has recently changed, maybe it should be lowered again? Perhaps if "benefits" were really only kept for the most vulnerable in Society and not given out to families on higher earnings (child benefit) means testing for winter fuel allowance then maybe we could all pay less tax?

The there are the landlords who have increased rental charges much higher than inflation because they can. They know that housing benefit will pick up the cost/part of the cost for a large number of people working or not and so rents kept increasing. Now the cap may mean landlords think carefully before increasing further?

So childcare providers and landlords have done very well from benefit payments to people.

Just a thought.

Why should we punish parents who go out to work to provide for their kids than claiming JSA or IS? I work full time and NEED the childcare element of childcare otherwise I wouldn't be able to work. I would be earning less than I was spending on childcare and rent. And I earn a good wage.

Surely it's not working parents fault that nurseries are charging through the roof. It won't bring the costs down much. Tax credits went down by 10% this year and my nursery fees increased! I claim £1000 a month in tax credits. If they reduce the childcare element anymore then I will simply need to leave work because I couldn't afford all the bills. Then I will be claiming well over £1000 a month in benefits and paying next to nothing tax. You tell me where the logic is in that?