Wanting to leave work

dktreesea

dippy3103 wrote: »

Of course one other course of action open to the o/p which may take a while but will ensure the family have a living wage is to find another job and then leave their current role.

My job has changed hugely in the past few years- both my t&c's & location - I now have a 60 mile round commute. On some days the office politics are horrid.

However, mortgages don't pay themselves & my disabled child (he has far greater care needs than other kids his age) relies on me to work to support him. So I, like thousands others, have to suck it all up and look fir another job before I leap. Why should the tax payer support me?

Would this happen anywhere other than the UK?

The welfare state is a safety net, not a choice

Yes, the welfare state is a safety net. So it's okay for it to support people who have never worked, or who potter about at their own enjoyable but unlikely to ever fully support them "business", but not people who are currently taxpayers but want to try their hand at something else?

People who are self employed change tack a lot, expanding and contracting various lines of their business, many of them all the while relying on the state to provide them with a basic standard of living. That "basic" standard doesn't necessarily mean cheap for the taxpayer either.

So why is it that someone who is currently a net payee rather than beneficiary of that system should be excluded from taking part?

Nobody "has to" suck it up at all. Our current system is designed to give people a choice. And it doesn't restrict people to staying within the "working for someone else at a PAYE job" world.

whodathunkit

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, the welfare state is a safety net. So it's okay for it to support people who have never worked, or who potter about at their own enjoyable but unlikely to ever fully support them "business", but not people who are currently taxpayers but want to try their hand at something else?

People who are self employed change tack a lot, expanding and contracting various lines of their business, many of them all the while relying on the state to provide them with a basic standard of living. That "basic" standard doesn't necessarily mean cheap for the taxpayer either.

So why is it that someone who is currently a net payee rather than beneficiary of that system should be excluded from taking part?

Nobody "has to" suck it up at all. Our current system is designed to give people a choice. And it doesn't restrict people to staying within the "working for someone else at a PAYE job" world.

I doubt very much that someone on a lowish income with 3 young children and a non working wife is a net payee of the system. Even if you don't allow for health and education costs, the amount received in CB/CTC/LHA is going to be considerably higher than paid in tax.

Our current system is not, fortunately, designed to give people a choice as to whether they chuck in their job and claim even more benefits, that's why you can't claim JSA for 6 months if you give up a job voluntarily.

dippy3103

Really? So if I quit my job today, tomorrow the tax payer will support me?
After all I have stuck 22 years of abuse so perhaps it's my turn?

BillJones

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, the welfare state is a safety net. So it's okay for it to support people who have never worked, or who potter about at their own enjoyable but unlikely to ever fully support them "business", but not people who are currently taxpayers but want to try their hand at something else?

Yes. It's there for people who have no choice. It's not a pot to be dipped into when you fancy having society take the strain.

I can't quite believe that someone would even ask this...

dktreesea

BillJones wrote: »

Yes. It's there for people who have no choice. It's not a pot to be dipped into when you fancy having society take the strain.

I can't quite believe that someone would even ask this...

That is naive. That's a good description of our welfare state in action. A pot to be dipped into when you fancy having society take the strain.

Yes, if you go about this the "wrong" way, and just resign and then try to sign on, you could (but again, not always) be subjected to a 6 month stand down.

On the other hand, if you knew your way around the benefits system you would know you could become self employed, give up your job and claim benefits straight away using your current year's income under certain circumstances (to do with the disregard rules for increasing or lowering income).

If your estimated income from self employment for the current year is lower than your previous year's income by more than whatever the disregard is, then your current year's estimate would count as your income for the purpose of assessing any benefits you may be entitled to.

Leaving aside people who want to leave their jobs, are you seriously telling me that a household, deliberately working the minimum they can work, 24 hours a week for the whole household, to enable them to qualify for WTC and all the follow on benefits, - not to mention to keep them out of the DWP's/harms way - has no choice? Really? Of course they have a choice, and they are making it; deciding on taking time back for themselves at other people's expense.

Do I support such a system? No, of course not. it's government sanctioned fraud of a sort. But maybe those in government who support it and keep it going believe that not everyone is up to the rigours of working 9 to 5 full time. Or should I say 6am to 6pm by the time they get up, get their children sorted, commute however many hours to work and back each day.

FBaby

On the other hand, if you knew your way around the benefits system you would know you could become self employed

Indeed, and it is because more and more figured out how to play the system that the system had to invest yet millions to try to develop a new system to end it. It is being slow coming, but many will have a shock when they will be expected to earn minimum wage to be able to claim tax credits.

But maybe those in government who support it and keep it going believe that not everyone is up to the rigours of working 9 to 5 full time.

They don't intend on keeping it going because unfortunately, too many people saw the benefits of spending most of their time enjoying family life whilst pretending to be starting a business, and getting a good income from benefits for it with a low risk of having to provide evidence that they really are working.

whodathunkit

dktreesea wrote: »

That is naive. That's a good description of our welfare state in action. A pot to be dipped into when you fancy having society take the strain.

Yes, if you go about this the "wrong" way, and just resign and then try to sign on, you could (but again, not always) be subjected to a 6 month stand down.

On the other hand, if you knew your way around the benefits system you would know you could become self employed, give up your job and claim benefits straight away using your current year's income under certain circumstances (to do with the disregard rules for increasing or lowering income).

If your estimated income from self employment for the current year is lower than your previous year's income by more than whatever the disregard is, then your current year's estimate would count as your income for the purpose of assessing any benefits you may be entitled to.

Leaving aside people who want to leave their jobs, are you seriously telling me that a household, deliberately working the minimum they can work, 24 hours a week for the whole household, to enable them to qualify for WTC and all the follow on benefits, - not to mention to keep them out of the DWP's/harms way - has no choice? Really? Of course they have a choice, and they are making it; deciding on taking time back for themselves at other people's expense.

Do I support such a system? No, of course not. it's government sanctioned fraud of a sort. But maybe those in government who support it and keep it going believe that not everyone is up to the rigours of working 9 to 5 full time. Or should I say 6am to 6pm by the time they get up, get their children sorted, commute however many hours to work and back each day.

Unless someone has a disability then nobody should have a problem with working full time, particularly if that's only 9 to 5.

Why do you think that people have suddenly become so feeble and why do you seek to encourage this frailty?

jamesmorgan

Unfortunately this forum has moved away from being a money guidance site, to being one where posters feel the urge to air their political grievances. The OP is in a position where he works full time and his wife provides childcare. He wants to switch this arrangement (not an unreasonable action) and wants to understand the impact on his financial position.

The way that tax credits and other benefits work it is likely that he will see a small drop in income (dependant on his savings). This situation may be changed slightly as we move to universal credit. There are a number of benefit calculators to help people understand the impact of change in circumstances. As long as you input the correct data you should get an accurate answer - if this shows not much change in your net income, this is not unrealistic.

I know families where the one sole earner was on a much higher salary (3x average salary) and have swapped roles to a much lower earner, but have seen little change to their net income.

Personally, I think it is important that the state values childcare as an occupation (whether done by a parent or a paid carer). It is also important that we don't fall into the trap of valuing a job by how much it pays. If a person decides to move job to a lower paid job (for whatever reason) that should remain their personal decision.

As to the relative merits of the decision for the OP's wife to take up her chosen career path, again I see this as a personal decision for them to take.

BillJones

dktreesea wrote: »

I take your point but my first thought on reading this was "it's not fair! Why should your OH get to be a policeman while thousands apply every year and get turned away?"

He gets to be a policeman because he's applied, he's gained the required qualifications, and he's done enough to impress the recruiters during the recruitment process. He's then prepared, over years and decades, to work hard, no matter what the job throws at him, and to maintain the necessary standards.

While not in any way denigrating what is a fine profession, being in the police is also a career that is open to a decent fraction of society, so long as they are honest, diligent, hard working, and willing to obtain the necessary qualifications. It is absolutely not a career where people need to be "lucky" to be accepted.

dippy3103

BillJones wrote: »

He gets to be a policeman because he's applied, he's gained the required qualifications, and he's done enough to impress the recruiters during the recruitment process. He's then prepared, over years and decades, to work hard, no matter what the job throws at him, and to maintain the necessary standards.

While not in any way denigrating what is a fine profession, being in the police is also a career that is open to a decent fraction of society, so long as they are honest, diligent, hard working, and willing to obtain the necessary qualifications. It is absolutely not a career where people need to be "lucky" to be accepted.

What Bill said, 110%