Is £40,000 really a liveable income for families in the UK?

zcrat41

RenovationMan wrote: »

Phew it's hard to pin you down Graham, you're wriggling about like a worm on a hook.

So what you are saying is that:

If you work a 5 day week at a single job and earn £30k per annum and receive tax credits to top up your income then that's OK.

If someone else works a 4 day week at a single job and earns £30k per annum and receives tax credits to top up their income that's BAD.

You say it's bad because you feel that the 4 day week person should work a further day in order to increase his income and reduce his tax credits.

Well to take this further, if I work a 6 day week, am I allowed to look at your measly 5 day a week working and pour scorn on you for "refraining from working and receiving benefits"?

Gotta say I'm with Graham on this one. Yes the person on 4 days is "Bad" if he chooses to do so. Might be legal but most definitely morally wrong. Why on earth should anyone else on this earth (bar close family) help you unless you are disabled, genuinely ill or in significantly bad times that you need a helping hand with.

I have many friends who receive WTC and child ben. They're all on about 25 - 40k between them and don't need my taxes helping them out. What they do need to do is stop buying ipods/pads, fancy tellys and a new car every year. They have enough DVD's to set up a lending library. Admittedly, they don't holiday (abroad) every year. Only every other.

Would gladly have my taxes help them out in case of serious illness/short term joblessness/injury etc etc. To pay for their technology/sky fixation - no blimmin way.

michaels

Just had a thought.

May be one issue is that the tax credits are worked out on an annual basis so that if someone were on a lower income for 12 months during a single tax year they might qualify for loads of benefits whereas if the 12 months were spread over 2 tax years they might qualify for none?

Imagine if unemployment benefit worked the same way - receive unemployment for the first 8 months of the year and there would be no incentive to get a job for the last 4 months as assessed over the 12 month period you would have earned to much to be eligible for the unemployment benefit and would thus be expected to pay it all back.

Obviously the problem with this is that it might be even easier for people to manipulate their earnings on a monthly basis but as a concept it seems fairer to me.

psyman17

£40k a year woruld be a dream for us, only 2 in our house & combined income is less than £35K. We arent entitled to any benefits either & life is often a struggle.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Phew it's hard to pin you down Graham, you're wriggling about like a worm on a hook.

So what you are saying is that:

No, I've told you 3 times now, it's got not a jot to do with how many hours or days you work. It's all to do with the income you earn.

Therefore, you can ask me as many times as you like from now on, but you will get ignored.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

What if I had said I had given up my extra part time job (on top of a full time job) to spend more time with the family as because of the impact of tax and tax credits I was only earning a very small amount from doing the job - would that also have been morally wrong?

Giving up any work, purposely, with the intent to claim benefits, is morally wrong.

I really don't get why this is difficult to understand, or how comparisons with child benefit can be drawn.

michaels

But I'm still not sure where you draw the line - what about someone working 5 days/35 hours and receiving tax credits - should they take overtime/get a part time job in order to reduce their tax credits or is that unreasonable to expect? Suppose you had 2 more kids and thus got some tax credits, would you feel morally obliged to work on Weekends as well to get back out of the tax credits bracket?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, I've told you 3 times now, it's got not a jot to do with how many hours or days you work. It's all to do with the income you earn.

Therefore, you can ask me as many times as you like from now on, but you will get ignored.

michaels

So giving up work is wrong - but how about not looking for work?

Suppose I could add on 5 hours on a Saturday to a 37.5 hour week in a part time job paying £6ph. After paying tax I would have £7.50 which might not pay for petrol and parking but I would obviously be £22.50 less burden on the tax payer. Is this the right thing to do?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Giving up any work, purposely, with the intent to claim benefits, is morally wrong.

I really don't get why this is difficult to understand, or how comparisons with child benefit can be drawn.

Graham_Devon

Ok, lets put it another way.

As the tax pot is so large, people look at it from a different perspective.

Imagine living on an estate with 30 houses. Each house works. You then decide you don't really care for that, you want to spend time at home. So you go round on certain day of the month, to each of the 29 houses and ask them for £100 each, out of their wages, to keep you sat at home enjoying your time with your wife and kids.

That's basically what's happening, but on a much larger, none personal level.

How many would give you that £100 out of their hard earned cash?

If the boot was on the other foot, would YOU be happy to hand over cash to that person on your estate who's decided thats the way it's going to be...while you have to spend time away from your wife and kids working for your cash?

I KNOW this is on a personal level, I KNOW it's not £100 each. It's an example, but it's basically what is happening. Money is being claimed from other people working because you wish to spend time at home with your family.

If you have the opportunity to work, and yo uare able to work, and you are actively turning that down, in order to continue sitting there taking off the taxpayer, it is wrong. Simple as for me. I cannot make it any clearer.

Regardless of the personal "have a go at that poster" contest now going on, I bet deep down we are all in complete agreement with that very simple, factual comment.

I did not wish for bad feeling between us, I respect you as an individual, I do not respect your choice to take off the taxpayer. I do not wish for hard feelings between us, but accept it may be too late. The system may allow you to do what you are doing, but I cannot merely say "oh thats ok then" carry on. We all play a part.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, I've told you 3 times now, it's got not a jot to do with how many hours or days you work. It's all to do with the income you earn.

Therefore, you can ask me as many times as you like from now on, but you will get ignored.

lol, brilliant. :rotfl:

You won't answer because you know you're in the wrong. Your whole argument is based on the premise that you feel that if someone CAN earn more income (and therefore reduce their tax credits) then they should.

I believe you have a single job Graham and don't have an evening or weekend job, so how on earth can you live with yourself, turning down that additional work and instead claiming higher tax credits? By your own rules you are condemned.

RenovationMan

michaels wrote: »

But I'm still not sure where you draw the line - what about someone working 5 days/35 hours and receiving tax credits - should they take overtime/get a part time job in order to reduce their tax credits or is that unreasonable to expect? Suppose you had 2 more kids and thus got some tax credits, would you feel morally obliged to work on Weekends as well to get back out of the tax credits bracket?

Graham's been dodging this question all afternoon from me, even to the point where he is threatening to put me on ignore if I keep asking it. He knows his argument is unravelling around him. What he is really saying is that people in his circumstances are OK everyone else outside his circumstances are not. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.