wages same as benefits - what would you do?

Mojisola

Toomuchdebt wrote: »

Oh cos that would be so fair on people like me whose partner was quite happy supporting us for years and then suddenly cheated and went off with the other woman...maybe I should have given up some of the kids for adoption or something cos with your system we wouldn't be able to afford to eat let alone buy clothes or pay bills.

Nobody can see into the future...had I known this was going to happen I would have had less kids but I didn't know

I totally agree in the case of those women who just carry on having them all the time just because of benefits.

But wouldn't you have at least taken it into consideration before having more than two children? Parents do split up; others die while the children are still young.

MissMoneypenny

Teahfc wrote: »

What happens .. And it will when the big Tory axe comes down on tax credits ?

It's not just the "big Tory axe" as the welfare changes could not have got passed in parliament if Labour MPs didn't vote in favour of the changes. Many old school Labour back benchers (as oppose to New Labour) were never in favour of the creation of the new benefit Tax Credit that New Labour (Blair and Brown) brought in as a "vote winner", as it went against Labours "Fair days work for a fair days pay" mantra.

Even New Labour brought in ATOS and medicals for those claiming sick benefits. This coalition government have continued with that policy, as they are in favour of it too.

All parties are in favour of welfare reforms, probably because they all now realise the country can't afford the ever growing welfare bill and because some benefits have created a welfare trap.

A job with prospects? Grab it with both hands as that chance may not come again.

MissMoneypenny

Toomuchdebt wrote: »

Oh cos that would be so fair on people like me whose partner was quite happy supporting us for years and then suddenly cheated and went off with the other woman...

1 in 2 marriages end in divorce. These figures would have been the same before you had your children. I don't know the % of those parents who split up when they aren't married.

MissMoneypenny

mattcanary wrote: »

If you read the opening thread, OP does work!

But only just over 1 hour a day on average. National minimum wage is £6.31phour and she earns £200 a month.

MissMoneypenny

TheSaint wrote: »

The benefits system is here to support people bring up their children.

I suppose that is how some people who are new to the the UK's benefit system, view benefits. However the UK's Welfare State was invented to help those who really are too ill to work and to give temporary help to those who lost their job. Parents were expected to take reponsibilty for the children they created and to work to support their own families.

Even when Child Benefit came in (years after the creation of the welfare state) this money was just a small amount and was never paid for the first child.

There was a married person allowance, but that was a fixed amount and didn't increase with each extra child the parents had; didn't increase if the parents reduced their work hours and it wasn't paid if the parents didn't work. If parents wanted more money, then they worked for it.

It was only with the invention of Tax Credits (just a decade ago) for what Blair called "a vote winner", that some people viewed the welfare state as being there to support their lifestyle choices.

The welfare state could never afford Tax Credits; that benefit is now the UK's 3rd most expensive benefit; the welfare bill is now more than the government takes in income tax; the welfare bill is still growing. This is one of the reasons why parliament have voted to end Tax Credits and get the Welfare State back to what it was intended for. And to get parents back to taking responsibility for the children they chose to have (the other reason for Tax Credits going). And to make income based benefits just for the poor, but with conditions attached to their receiving benefits, so that it makes benefits an uncomfortable lifestyle choice.

Expect more changes to come too as too many claimants have (over the last decade) incorrectly assumed that the benefits system is here to support me bring up all my children and my lifestyle choices. It doesn't matter which party you vote for; the welfare state is going back to what it was invented for.

seven-day-weekend

Spot on, Miss Moneypenny. People don't realise that up until relatively recently Benefits were seen as a safety net and not a way of life.

JimmyTheWig

SkyeKnight wrote: »

Alternatively, if her work or her husbands work have childcare vouchers then that will also save money - usually more than the tax credits. Surely that makes quite a big difference to the calculation?

I believe, generally, that tax credits are worth more than childcare vouchers.

Toomuchdebt

Mojisola wrote: »

But wouldn't you have at least taken it into consideration before having more than two children? Parents do split up; others die while the children are still young.

Had I been thinking that way I would have been saving money not running up debts.Honestly it never occurred to me that he would leave me-definitely didn't ever even consider that someone might die...naive possibly..selfish to have more than 2 children-yes definitely-but then again that's why I am in debt now-I bought stuff that we didn't need because I wanted it Thankfully I have changed now but I can't see how anyone can think a limit on the benefits for more than 2 children is ever going to be a good thing because it's the kids that will suffer, especially if the only parent around is a single mother(or father)-couples I agree should have benefit limits because let's face it, if the father works certain hours then the mum can find a job to work around those hours(in theory)-however for me right now, working is not possible-not with 5 children at home(no 6 is at uni now)-school pick up times for the youngest would clash, the youngest isn't at playgroup full time so has to be picked up at 12 some days-can't afford childcare for those extra times...as it happens I am worse off not working right now but the sheer time and stress involved(as well as my health and my little boy's health) makes it too difficult to organise...I am looking forward to when he goes to school fulltime and also me going back to college and working as I'll be 400 a month better off than I am now.Hope all that made sense-I'm on painkillers today which make me ramble a bit.

SkyeKnight

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I believe, generally, that tax credits are worth more than childcare vouchers.

Sorry for any misinformation. My thinking was as follows:

If you earnings are low enough that you would still qualify for Child Tax Credits on your salary, then Childcare Tax Credits save you 70% of the cost. If you get childcare vouchers by salary sacrifice then you save tax (20%), National Insurance (12%) and reduce your taxable pay so get 41% of it back as Child Tax Credits. Total saving of 73%.

Obviously wrong because everywhere says that claiming Childcare Tax Credits is better. Is it because the salary sacrifice for Childcare Vouchers isn't subtracted from you taxable income? Otherwise it looks to me like Childcare vouchers are always better unless you don't earn enough to pay tax.

JimmyTheWig

I can't argue with your logic, SkyeKnight!

I suggest, then, if people are in the position of having the option that they investigate with their own circumstances...