working vs benefits

Deep_In_Debt

krustylouise wrote: »

I don't mean to sound nasty (I'm sure plenty of people out there will probably be along to give you their opinions shortly) but if you can work, you should. How much better off you are shouldn't come into it, we'd all be financially better off not working and on benefits (this has recently been confirmed to me by a lady in my local town hall, but what example would anyone be setting turning up their nose at good honest employment over benefits simply for financial gain?

I can see why many stay on benefits as their is simply no financial incentive to do otherwise, compliments of our lovely government, but personally I couldn't do it. I couldn't bring up DD knowing I'm not providing for her myself. Knowing I'm not setting her a good example, showing he that you have to work for things in life. But then again, we're all different aren't we?

Good luck with whatever you decide and I genuinely hope it works out for you, and your family.

Really? All of us?

dktreesea

victoria04 wrote: »

briefly
i have been offered a job 19 hours a week permanent £6.70 per hour

husband on income related esa support group for approximately another 15months

i receive carers for hubby

also he is getting dla middle care / high mobility

1 son student also on dla middle care due for review may 2014

also receive tax credit for son and child benefit will both end when son 20 in may 2014

full council tax and housing benefit

Have tried all day to gain information if going to be worse off financially no answer from job centre ESA helpline did not know,
i know i will only gain £20 but is the rest of my wages deducted from husbands esa? or do we loose carers housing benefit aswell

any help would be brilliant x

OP, my advice would be to take the job. Your family life sounds quite difficult; maybe you would enjoy the break/change of scene. If it turns out to be the wrong decision for you in your current circumstances, you can always give up the job and go back to being a FT carer.

If, on the other hand, you don't take up the job, you might always regret not knowing how it would have worked out.

You would probably still get quite a lot of housing benefit, because your household income (I think disability benefits and child benefit are excluded from the calculation?) even with part time work and going onto working tax credit, may still be below the amount the government has decided your family need to live on before it will cut back on affected benefits like housing and council tax benefit.

krustylouise

Morlock wrote: »

Please explain how (I don't expect that you will answer).

I will never evade answering questions. I started work full time, from 16hours a week. I lost all housing benefit, all help with council tax, and had to pay extra to put my child into childcare. Without going into specific hourly rates, as I believe these are personal - my benefits lost were well below what I gained from my increase I'm wage.

Just to add - I'm don't entirely understand why you would assume the worst of me, when as you can clearly see from my posts none of them were nasty to the OP and in fact I wished her luck.

Morlock

krustylouise wrote: »

Just to add - I'm don't entirely understand why you would assume the worst of me, when as you can clearly see from my posts none of them were nasty to the OP and in fact I wished her luck.

You claimed to be £300 per month worse off when moving in to full time work. I doubted that assertion, and without figures to prove otherwise, I'm still skeptical.

That doesn't mean I think you are nasty, but perhaps exaggerating to suit your agenda. In the huge majority of cases, people are better off in work than claiming benefits and not working, the Tories would like the electorate to believe otherwise to justify benefit cuts. Anecdotal stories such as yours do not help in stopping the relentless ideology of slashing welfare under false pretenses.

tumboodle

krustylouise wrote: »

if you can work, you should. How much better off you are shouldn't come into it

I'm sorry to say but you are not living in the real world. Of course people will weigh up if it is worth working.

I got to 60 and had enough of work so I worked out what the total benefits would be V my current net salary.

I then went to the jobcentre to have it confirmed (they looked at me as though I had two heads) when I asked the question.

I plumped for benefits and to be honest I haven't looked back - that was nearly 5 years ago. My total benefits exceeded my net salary by a mile ( my gross salary was £35,000pa).

So I retired early and certainly don't have any feelings of guilt. If the government want to make this possible, who am I to refuse the option?

tumboodle

p00hsticks wrote: »

Sorry to be rude but I simply cannot let this pass - this is absolute BS! At least it has the advantage that it is such a ludicrous statement that anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognise it as such.

No it isn't - my own situation actually proves it!

cbrown372

tumboodle wrote: »

I'm sorry to say but you are not living in the real world. Of course people will weigh up if it is worth working.

I got to 60 and had enough of work so I worked out what the total benefits would be V my current net salary.

I then went to the jobcentre to have it confirmed (they looked at me as though I had two heads) when I asked the question.

I plumped for benefits and to be honest I haven't looked back - that was nearly 5 years ago. My total benefits exceeded my net salary by a mile ( my gross salary was £35,000pa).

So I retired early and certainly don't have any feelings of guilt. If the government want to make this possible, who am I to refuse the option?

You forget to mention all the pension credit you claim Andy, the DLA the double CA, the notability car etc etc netting you a handsome £600 odd a week. I will agree you and all your other user names have no shame.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Morlock wrote: »

You claimed to be £300 per month worse off when moving in to full time work. I doubted that assertion, and without figures to prove otherwise, I'm still skeptical.

That doesn't mean I think you are nasty, but perhaps exaggerating to suit your agenda. In the huge majority of cases, people are better off in work than claiming benefits and not working, the Tories would like the electorate to believe otherwise to justify benefit cuts. Anecdotal stories such as yours do not help in stopping the relentless ideology of slashing welfare under false pretenses.

I would agree - unless she failed to declare the payment of child care costs so they could disregard more of her income.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

You claimed to be £300 per month worse off when moving in to full time work. I doubted that assertion, and without figures to prove otherwise, I'm still skeptical.

That doesn't mean I think you are nasty, but perhaps exaggerating to suit your agenda. In the huge majority of cases, people are better off in work than claiming benefits and not working, the Tories would like the electorate to believe otherwise to justify benefit cuts. Anecdotal stories such as yours do not help in stopping the relentless ideology of slashing welfare under false pretenses.

If she was part of a couple then with childcare, loss of tax credits, childcare taper that moving to full time work would put them worse off if the part time wage had them close to cut off limits and full time took them over. Example - tipped over 26,000 so all TC for that year needing repaid, loss of HB etc and less childcare.

tumboodle

cbrown372 wrote: »

You forget to mention all the pension credit you claim Andy, the DLA the double CA, the notability car etc etc netting you a handsome £600 odd a week. I will agree you and all your other user names have no shame.

Have you misposted your comments? They don't seem relevant at all to what I have said.