Worse of by working.

Anny_2

How can a couple get housing and council tax benefit when one is earning between £1,220 and £2,120 and claiming WTC and the other one chooses not to work?

When my children were little we received nothing but child benefit and I worked whatever hours I could around my husbands so one of us was always there with the children.

Granted, we did not have large debts each month...but surely that is to an extent a personal choice ditto luxury items and not a reason for benefits?

It appears the OP needs to get a job anyway due to her children being 14 and 17, so no choice...but to have been able to claim benefits for so long is unbelievable...I could understand a 'cut off' point of 5 or 6 but 14+?

I may have got this all wrong, but targeting people who cannot work (changes to disabled benefits) and rewarding people who choose not to work is, in my opinion, in no way fair or just...the first is a need to survive and the second is a lifestyle choice.

I am not having a go at the OP...if it is there to be claimed then people will claim it, but I am genuinely surprised at the amount of 'in work' benefits being paid...when only one partner chooses to work.

pickpocketlocket

merlin68 wrote: »

£490 shopping special diets due to milk allergies.

I don't have milk in my diet (through choice) - I don't spend anywhere near that amount!

BigAunty

Anny wrote: »

How can a couple get housing and council tax benefit when one is earning between £1,220 and £2,120 and claiming WTC and the other one chooses not to work?

..

No, her husband earns from £900 per month - that figure is one that a later poster added on her potential income which then wipes out all her means tested benefits.

We don't know the annual household income because she has only given the minimum and maximum variable income of her husband, not the median.

Anny wrote: »

It appears the OP needs to get a job anyway due to her children being 14 and 17, so no choice...but to have been able to claim benefits for so long is unbelievable...I could understand a 'cut off' point of 5 or 6 but 14+?

..

It is only lone parents that are obliged to seek employment when their youngest child turns 5 (though I think that it used to be around 12 or 14 in the past). This is perhaps why you are confused.

There is no compunction for a couple to have the other in employment. In fact, until April this year, there was only a requirement for one of the parents in a couple to work 16 hours to qualify for working tax credits and this has now been increased until 24.

Therefore it is merely voluntary for the OP to take up employment. Now she has found that the benefit trap means those on a certain level of income are actually no better off if they work more due to the high withdrawal of benefits.

This is supposed to be something that is getting tackled under Universal Credit (can't remember now if there is any change in a couple with children expected working hours to qualify for it).

Marisco

merlin68 wrote: »

Yes but out of that i have to pay monthly
£480 rent and council tax
£490 shopping special diets due to milk allergies. Too high, this can be cut right down
£160 gas and electric card meter. This is very high as well, I'm sure a bit could be shaved off that
£120 dd for bus pass and college expenses.
£204 car loan
£61 car insurance
£45 water
£12 tv
£21 service plan for car
£180 on sky, hubbies work mobile and tv rental. Get rid of Sky, use Freeview and claim for works mobile
£16 dog insurance. Shop around for cheaper
£40 dd special school for trips Per month????
£40 car expenses. tax and mot
£400 debt repayment Negotiate with lenders to come to a lower payment plan
£280 petrol
I can't save on car expenses as oh is a parcel courier and needs specialist insurance hence the high petrol costs.

As folk have said, nip over to the DFW board, they posters over there are very good at getting outgoings down, but be prepared, they will say get rid of Sky!!

Charityworker

I know how you feel. I've got 3 part time jobs and my husband has got 1 full time job. We are so tired all the time. And for all that we are £1 a week worse off than if we didn't work. I know £1 isn't a lot but we should be better off, not worse.

Mara69

merlin68 wrote: »

I'm going to take the job anyway, and loose my benifit allowance, but by me earning £80 a week we loose working tax credit, housing benifit and council tax benifit plus my dd bursary at college

Darling, it's not the benefits system that is causing your poverty, it is your debt (£400 per month!!!) and the utterly, utterly ridiculous £180 a month on Sky etc.

You are clearly living way above your means. Get a full time job and cut back on the laughable expenses you are incurring.

Anny_2

Thank you so much for explaining BigAunty. I have read many of your posts and so I am aware you have vast experience re- benefits..so much appreciated, that you took the time.

Still confused, however, by the fact a single parent is expected to work when their child is 7...meaning the need for childcare, which while I realise there will no doubt be some benefit for that, it is not the same as the child being with one or other parent...of course only having one parent that is not an option. Yet, someone who has a partner who could provide split childcare does not need to work until the children are old enough to look after themselves.

Only 24 hrs work to 'trigger' 'in work' benefits? So two perfectly fit and healthy adults can, if one is working 24 hrs per week, get the maximum 'in work' benefits?

I am so confused...lol...my p/time back in the day was often 30 hours and my partner often worked 60 hours plus...so 66 hrs more than a couple working 24 hours per week for bare wages and child support and now 24 hrs per week for child support, WTC, HB and CTAX.

Amazing, and if the welfare bill needs cutting surely here is a prime candidate to be cut.

I am trying to learn more about benefits because there does seem to be such vast differences from one to another and I would like to know why.

BigAunty

Anny wrote: »

T...

Still confused, however, by the fact a single parent is expected to work when their child is 7... Yet, someone who has a partner who could provide split childcare does not need to work until the children are old enough to look after themselves.

As far as I know, lone parents are turfed off Income Support and onto Job Seekers allowance when their youngest turns 5 now (used to be 7, then it used to be much older than that in the past, too).

There is a requirement, in terms of receiving Working Tax Credits, for a couple with kids to work at least 24 hours between them with one of them working at least 16 hours of them. In the past it used to be just 16 hours for WTC but changed in April. Of course, WTC also depends on income, too.

When it was 16 hours per week threshold, there were 212,000 couples with children with one adult working part time and claiming WTC. Don't know how many since it moved to 24 hours - some would lose their WTC because they couldn't find any more hours.

There is no requirement for two parents to be in full time employment when their children reach any particular age - it's simply their decision if one wants to be a full time homemaker. Perhaps the OP would be much better off is she could work full time because she'd net around £200 per week and perhaps this lifts her clear of the negative effect of having all her benefits ceased but perhaps it won't - she'd need to model this on a benefits calculator.

At the age of her youngest daughter, I was cooking dinner for the family while my mother had an evening cleaning job. At the age of her oldest daugher, I was studying for A'levels while working around 25 hours per week in a fast food chain (every Weds and Fri eve, every Sat and Sun). Of course, it was a different time then when casual work for teens was easy to come by and it predated tax credits.

Child tax credits depend on income - there is no work related criteria to qualify.

Other income or means tested benefits like council tax and housing benefit depend on household income, too - working hours are irrelevant.

I came across a table published by the DWP that showed that unless a couple in a household with a couple of kids earns more than 25k, it's virtually not worth their while working much more than part time on NMW because each time they work more hours or the other partner takes up another job, they lose so much in benefits that they barely see much of their extra pay (and by the time you factor in child care and transport to work costs, it can be a negative figure).

It's not really the benefits system per se - it's because we are in a high cost/low wage economy (high rent, childcare, transport, bills) with many employers only paying the NMW. If one parent earns a full time wage on NMW - about £200 per week - it is absolutely impossible to pay rent, council tax, bills and raise a couple of kids.

Notmyrealname

Anny wrote: »

Still confused, however, by the fact a single parent is expected to work when their child is 7...meaning the need for childcare, which while I realise there will no doubt be some benefit for that, it is not the same as the child being with one or other parent...of course only having one parent that is not an option.

I'm not. Like many on this board, both my parents worked for my entire childhood. Gran looked after us after school until one of my parents got home around 5pm until I was 9 or 10 and then I looked after my brothers.

There were no tax credits and all you got was a bit of child benefit for the second child, not even for every child.

merlin68

If you can tell my hubbie to cut back on his mobile sky and tv you are welcome to him, i have been trying for 16 years lol. it's like talking to a brick wall. He'd rather starve, all my friends have tried he justs blanks them.