Stay at home parents are non persons.

Carmina_Piranha_3

Lillibet wrote:

(not sure exactly where the "drop" line is when it reduces)

i didn't play around with that end (although 50k gave the same result as 26k) but for getting more than the family element at the lower end there was a difference between 25 and 26k for 2 kids, no disability and no pension.

i remember when i had rooster that husband earned around £20 PER YEAR over the threshold - if he had earned £20 less we could have got the £500 grant for buying baby things. i considered asking if they could taper it and give us £480 :rotfl:

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

i find if you are a married or a couple where one is a stay at home parent who cares if your not valued by any one other than your own family as long as one is providing an income etc ,non working (by choice)single parents are another issue which i will not talk about it , but this valued business is just rubbish look after your family and to hell what any one else thinks about you i couldnt careless what people think

rainbowrisin

TBH I'm glad the government doesn't pay me to look after my children - I've no doubt if they did it would come with all sorts of strings attached. I don't think I need a "benefit" from the government to feel valued. I know i'm doing the most important job in the world, as I strongly feel parents are the best people to look after children, especially in the early years.
I also get ticked off with anyone that knocks single mums for staying at home with their children on benefits in the early years. I'm self employed and have never been on "benefits" in my entire life, but if I needed to I'd claim benefits like a shot so that I could be at home with my littlies rather than putting them in nursery....infact I'd be happy to wear a big placard saying "could work, claims benefits to bring her children up".
I am a SAH single mum, who's self employed, so I work round or with the littlies.
Just my thoughts.

robindunne1

filigree wrote:

I know that everybody's circumstances are different but I disagree that a hypothetical family with a single income are financially worse off than we are, presuming both families have the same gross income.

We have two incomes now and gross over £40K, and probably pay less tax than a family where the husband (or even wife) earn £40K while the spouse stays at home. Why the heck not? With 70-odd hours of paid work every week we darn well expect more money than a family where only one person is earning! All we "gain" is 22% of £5000 which is £1100 - and that is immediately wiped out by my travel expenses at £1200 a year :eek: We don't qualify for a penny in childcare subsidies so I don't see how I'm being coerced/bribed/whatever into getting a job - the only financial reward is my salary.

I'm not complaining because I'm happy to work and we have a comfortable income , but I just wanted to point out another aspect of the debate using my household as an example.

It's a little more complicated than that. The personal allowance is £5035 at the moment and the starting rate of 10% on the next £2090. There is also the National Insurance element which people frequently forget about, but does make a difference. With these combined the difference can be:

Income tax
£5035 at 22% = £1107.70
£2090 at 10% = £209

National Insurance:
£84 x 52 = 4386 x 11% = £482.46

TOTAL: £1799.16 or £34.50/week. £150/month

Things gets even more complicated if the single earner is a high rate tax payer which only emphasises the problem. Also, if the single earner is paying back a student loan (which I am) the problem is even more acute. If I could double the marginal amount over which I paid it back we would be better off to the tune of £100 a month.

Also, taking into account the single persons discount which isn't available to stay at home parents can add another £200 annually to disposable income on an avergae Band D property.

With all of the variables taken into account the difference can quickly approach £50 a week for some people - a massive difference when bringing up children.

Every year when the personal allowances are increased the family with a stay at home partner will be penalised as those with two workers will get twice the benefit.

Also, Tax Credits are all worked out on GROSS TOTAL INCOME and it is plain to see the real income after deductions is much greater in a dual income.

Taxing people individually penalises the family. I support 4 people with my income, but can only be given the allowance of 1 person. I do not want more benefits - just want the government to be a little more sensible.

robindunne1

filigree wrote:

I know that everybody's circumstances are different but I disagree that a hypothetical family with a single income are financially worse off than we are, presuming both families have the same gross income.

We have two incomes now and gross over £40K, and probably pay less tax than a family where the husband (or even wife) earn £40K while the spouse stays at home. Why the heck not? With 70-odd hours of paid work every week we darn well expect more money than a family where only one person is earning! All we "gain" is 22% of £5000 which is £1100 - and that is immediately wiped out by my travel expenses at £1200 a year :eek: We don't qualify for a penny in childcare subsidies so I don't see how I'm being coerced/bribed/whatever into getting a job - the only financial reward is my salary.

I'm not complaining because I'm happy to work and we have a comfortable income , but I just wanted to point out another aspect of the debate using my household as an example.

It's a little more complicated than that. The personal allowance is £5035 at the moment and the starting rate of 10% on the next £2090. There is also the National Insurance element which people frequently forget about, but does make a difference. With these combined the difference can be:

Income tax
£5035 at 22% = £1107.70
£2090 at 10% = £209

National Insurance:
£84 x 52 = 4386 x 11% = £482.46

TOTAL: £1799.16 or £34.50/week. £150/month

Things gets even more complicated if the single earner is a high rate tax payer which only emphasises the problem. Also, if the single earner is paying back a student loan (which I am) the problem is even more acute. If I could double the marginal amount over which I paid it back we would be better off to the tune of £100 a month.

Also, taking into account the single persons discount which isn't available to stay at home parents can add another £200 annually to disposable income on an avergae Band D property.

With all of the variables taken into account the difference can quickly approach £50 a week for some people - a massive difference when bringing up children.

Every year when the personal allowances are increased the family with a stay at home partner will be penalised as those with two workers will get twice the benefit.

Also, Tax Credits are all worked out on GROSS TOTAL INCOME and it is plain to see the real income after deductions is much greater in a dual income.

Taxing people individually penalises the family. I support 4 people with my income, but can only be given the allowance of 1 person. I do not want more benefits - just want the government to be a little more sensible.

rainbowrisin

Taxing people individually penalises the family. I support 4 people with my income, but can only be given the allowance of 1 person. I do not want more benefits - just want the government to be a little more sensible.
...but as you're the only one paying tax in your family, surely you should be the only one eligible for tax relief? Why should someone who doesn't pay tax get relief from it?
Thankfully (IMHO) tax isn't based on marital status, but on taxable income. If finances are such that you need additional cash, then surely your partner could work part time from home, round the children, for taxable income, so that the family then benefits from her tax free allowance?
I completely sympathise with you that bringing up a family is expensive, and also think it's laudable that your partner is looking after your littlies, I'm just not sure that having a SAH Partner is a reason for a tax break.

filigree_2

robindunne1 wrote:

TOTAL: £1799.16 or £34.50/week. £150/month

Also, taking into account the single persons discount which isn't available to stay at home parents can add another £200 annually to disposable income on an avergae Band D property.

With all of the variables taken into account the difference can quickly approach £50 a week for some people - a massive difference when bringing up children.

Every year when the personal allowances are increased the family with a stay at home partner will be penalised as those with two workers will get twice the benefit.

Also, Tax Credits are all worked out on GROSS TOTAL INCOME and it is plain to see the real income after deductions is much greater in a dual income.

Taxing people individually penalises the family. I support 4 people with my income, but can only be given the allowance of 1 person. I do not want more benefits - just want the government to be a little more sensible.

I used this site to compare Family A with one earner on 40K against Family B where they earn £26K and £14K. At 2006/7 rates the difference is £30 a week. My tube fares alone cost £25 so I stand by my belief that the so-called benefit of having two tax allowances is wiped out by the expenses I have to meet because I work. Tax credits, council tax etc would be the same for both families. I was only looking at figures relating to my personal circumstances and I totally accept that others will have different experiences. For instance, I don't know anything about student loans so I'll take your word for that one.

I do see your point that single earners (with an unpaid spouse) pay more council tax than a single parent, but I was only looking at a comparison between single income versus dual income families.

Funnily enough, there are lots of childless people who complain bitterly that the current tax and benefit system penalises them, and families get all the handouts! I don't suppose there are many people who would stand up and say "dearie me, I think the government is giving me too much money"

robindunne1

rainbowrisin wrote:

Taxing people individually penalises the family. I support 4 people with my income, but can only be given the allowance of 1 person. I do not want more benefits - just want the government to be a little more sensible.
...but as you're the only one paying tax in your family, surely you should be the only one eligible for tax relief? Why should someone who doesn't pay tax get relief from it?
Thankfully (IMHO) tax isn't based on marital status, but on taxable income. If finances are such that you need additional cash, then surely your partner could work part time from home, round the children, for taxable income, so that the family then benefits from her tax free allowance?
I completely sympathise with you that bringing up a family is expensive, and also think it's laudable that your partner is looking after your littlies, I'm just not sure that having a SAH Partner is a reason for a tax break.

I think this is the point of my original post. Government policy at the moment is to get both parents out to work - and will even pay child care costs to do so.

Having kids means there is always a need for more income - but my wife and I have made a comitment that we will make whatever secrifices we need to make so the kids will have the stability of a parent at home.

Not allowing parents to have the flexibility to choose how to look after their children and promote the idea of sending both parents out to work only increases the stress of family life and promotes the break down of the family.

Yes, there are benefits for the family but if the single earner has anything near a decent income then means testing will ensure that those benefits will not be attainable. The child tax credit system is a sham. In my circumstances I receive £40 a week in tax credits - why can't they adjust my tax code and simply tax me £40 a week less?

It may be the cynic in me, but I suspect the current government have all these conveluted tax credit policies in place to ensure the electorate have a dependance on them - and I seriously doubt that voters will vote against policies for which they live off.

Simply, reduce the state, reduce tax and let me look after my family instead of giving money to the government and recycling it back to me through a system which is expensive, difficult to understand and full of errors.

vippymini

What i find silly is the goverment wont pay u to stay at home but if you become a registered childminder they will pay you to look after someone elses kids...

so what you do is you and a neigbour get registered and then pay each other to look after each otheres kids .......this is the crazy world we live in..

what with this the goverment wants mums to go to work and in the next breath want mums to stay at home and have kids as there going to be a shortage of the futer generation that pay our prnsions.... we cant win!

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

TBH even though i am worse off i chose stay at home mum and glad i have. Why do i want to let someone else look after the child i brang in to this world just to have a little bit more money. Despite what people think being on a lower income can help you value life and the little things like taking the kiddies to the park and having a picnic, or playnig 'pretend' games with them. You learn to budget and dont splash out on the unneccessaries nearly as much. Now when i buy something or my OH does we appreciate it much more. hopefully this will rub off on our little girl too. If we want a holiday or something then we will make a little more cash whether it be by OH's overtime or selling a few of our bits and bobs that no longer have any use to us.

Honestly it is a matter of preference - i'm more for home values and making sure i am at the forefront of my daughters early years.

When she starts school then i will go back to work - until then we will make do with what we have! Memories are much fonder than material things!

I dont believe that you should be paid to stay at home but i dont think that is what the OP is implying at all. I think it is about adjusting tax accordingly for your circumstances. And that being a MOTHER or FATHER who stays at home for the kiddies should be recognised as an important role! Where would we be without having that from our parents?

And my heart goes out to all the single parents (be it mums or dads) because i know the choice is difficult but you need to do what is better suited to your family. You deserve the money you get - but sadly there will always be benefit fiddlers in every catagory - and stupid ignorant people will continue to stereotype! sadly its the world we live in!