Payrise takes OH's income over £50k

Dunroamin

PippaGirl wrote: »

angela, adopting is hard work and you are doing a job even now. Sorry life is tough financially though. Hang in there, it is all worth it.

Dunroamin, the two councils here both have a remit for adoptors not being worse off following adoption and would certainly give an allowance if the adoption had created a reduction in income, even when on £50,000 so what you say is not the case here. The OP says though that she had given up her job 2 years previously so an adoption allowance would not have happened here either then.

When we were in this position, adoption allowances were available for those on incomes around benefit level, which is one of the reasons that we continued as long term foster parents rather than taking the adoption to conclusion. On two teachers' pensions from early retirement, there was no way that we could afford to forego the fostering allowance.

I'm afraid that your idea that adopters should be no worst off after adoption is quite unrealistic as this would mean that a council might have to pay an adoption allowance of £50K plus for many years if a higher earner wanted to adopt.

The official information, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/2030/regulation/3/made

Amount of the allowance

3.—(1) The allowance shall be of such amount as the adoption agency determines in accordance with paragraphs (2) to (4).

(2) In determining the amount of allowance the adoption agency shall take into account—

(a)the financial resources available to the adopters including any financial benefit which would be available in respect of the child when adopted;
(b)the amount required by the adopters in respect of their reasonable outgoings and commitments (excluding outgoings in respect of the child); and
(c)the financial needs and resources of the child.
(3) In assessing the income available to the adopters the adoption agency shall disregard mobility and attendance allowance payable in respect of the child and, where the adopters are in receipt of income support, child benefit.

(4) The allowance paid by the adoption agency shall not—

(a)include any element of remuneration for the care of the child by the adopters;
(b)exceed the amount of the fostering allowance excluding any element of remuneration in that allowance which would be payable if the child were fostered by the adopters."


My bold.

angelavdavis

woodbine wrote: »

are we beginning to see the start of the middle class backlash against benefits cuts?I really do hope so
as for not being able to manage on a 50k salary god help most of us

With respect, we are working class because we work for a living and have to do so to live.

My parents were born in slums in London - 4 families to one house, I went to lousy comprehensive and left school (with poor qualifications) at 16 to start paying into the household, having already been contributing financially into the household since I was 13. My first salary was £3.5k per annum after two years' study. I have paid for all my further education whilst working at the same time. My husband has an almost identical background (though his family were actually in domestic service). The fact my husband and I have progressed our incomes to these sort of salary levels is a reflection of how hard we have worked - not what schools our fathers attended or who our mates are. It sticks in my throat to be referred to as Middle Class because it is laughable!!

I didn't say we couldn't manage on a single £50k salary, I said my husband's payrise was likely to leave us worse off and was our only option for my husband to refuse the payrise.

angelavdavis

Poppie68 wrote: »

I was'nt assuming anything..your friend is in entirely a different situation to the OP. It must be a difficult for him and he has every ounce of my symphathy. There should be help for people in those situations but sadly there is not.
I think by people 'redirecting money' into their pension fund just to claim an extra £57 a month diverts the money available to other people .
How many people do this, if this is a common practice it needs to be made illegal.
Just maybe the people who need it most would then get more help like the elderly.

You mean like my elderly parents who have low pensions and live under our roof, subsidised by my husband's income? They would certainly be costing more than £57 per month to house elsewhere.

angelavdavis

Shovel_Lad wrote: »

:think::think::think:

Your point is valid.

I will clarify the situation: I couldn't resume working, despite being offered a job elsewhere shortly before having the children matched with us, because Social Services weren't happy about my doing so and cited this as a valid reason to refuse our adoption application as they felt that siblings required a parent at home full time until they went to school.

Because I hadn't continued employment right up to the point the children were placed, I wasn't entitled to adoption allowance (similar to maternity allowance). Had I not stopped employment for health reasons, this would not be the case.

Dunroamin

angelavdavis wrote: »

You mean like my elderly parents who have low pensions and live under our roof, subsidised by my husband's income? They would certainly be costing more than £57 per month to house elsewhere.

But that's extra income coming into the household!

Dunroamin

angelavdavis wrote: »

Because I hadn't continued employment right up to the point the children were placed, I wasn't entitled to adoption allowance (similar to maternity allowance). Had I not stopped employment for health reasons, this would not be the case.

NB

I think that you're using the term "adoption allowance" in a different way from the way in which the earlier poster (and I) were using it.

Poppie68

angelavdavis wrote: »

You mean like my elderly parents who have low pensions and live under our roof, subsidised by my husband's income? They would certainly be costing more than £57 per month to house elsewhere.

No i mean elderly people with real hardships for example trying to survive another bitter winter etc.

You have already stated your parents'gifted' some money to help you pay of your mortgage and for that reason they pay you less than they would if they rented privately and they contribute to the groccery bill.. so they pay rent and food and helped you pay off your mortgage.
Hardly subsidised???

princessdon

Like old people on pension credit of £200 + benefits per week?

Not all old people struggle - just like not all people struggle with the loss of CB.

Poppie68

Im not just on about the cash money, some elderly services have been cut.
The money saved by people playing fair could be used in so many different ways in this country and not just on the elderly.
This country has been helped along the broke route by some people playing the system.
The OP is not only wanting to play the system but is now considering making their pension pot bigger by doing it.

skintmacflint

I think refusing a payrise because of the effect of WTC is possibly short term thinking , even if it initally leaves you worse off by £57 per month. The less people rely on any benefit in this climate the better I think.

The government has plans to reduce the welfare bill by another 15 billion on top of what they're planning to cut next year. The allowances for WTC credit are likely to reduced further in the near future as well as many other benefits. Unless something short of a miracle happens.

So you may end up worse off starting 2015. At least a payrise is solid and definite.

In 2010 WTC cost 24 billion + CB 14 billion , that's 43% of the 88 billion of the welfare budget left once the 112 billion needed for pensions and additional care needs of elderly was deducted.
So can't see this not being targeted again.

And if you're going back to work part time shortly are you not going to lose the WTC anyway?

Just a thought.