Tax credit calculators for new budget 2016/17

nannytone_2

why do you keep going on about this 20k income as if its a HUGE salary?
it shows your age i suppose.
and as for taking something out after you've paid in ....
i can guarantee you've already had more out than you ever put in

merlin68

So what happens when interest rates go up, at the same time as insurance premiums and the loss of tax credits.
That mortgage, those debt payments and car insurance hikes might just push ones finance's over the edge.
Its not just the loss of tax credits its everything happening at once.

nannytone_2

merlin68 wrote: »

So what happens when interest rates go up, at the same time as insurance premiums and the loss of tax credits.
That mortgage, those debt payments and car insurance hikes might just push ones finance's over the edge.
Its not just the loss of tax credits its everything happening at once.

thats why people need to start making plans now, when they have time to make adjustments.

NYM

Could someone help this poster with his/her question...? It appears to have been missed during the discussion

Yankee1971 wrote: »

Hi, I am a single parent to 2 children under 16, work 20 hours a week and earn £9329 a year.
My combined monthly WTC and CTC is £676.06.
For 2015-2016, my annual WTC is £2782.07, CTC is £6108.54.
I would be most grateful if someone could tell me what I might expect to receive for 2016-2017. I do not envisage that my salary will increase.
Many thanks.
PS - this is my first posting, so still learning.

FBaby

I have a car,own my own home, have holidays and I don't see why I shouldn't have those things.

It is very unfortunate that you are not prepared to listen. WE have been in your position, working hard and raising your children, and no I din't think then that I deserved those things, most people didn't, they were just proud not to be dependent on their parents.

You have gone from being dependent on your parents to being dependent on the State. You have no appreciation at all to the fact that the ££££ that you get from the State that allows you to go on a nice foreign holiday might have been taken from a single high earning parent who after all their bills are paid (including a hefty childcare bill) will have nothing left to take their kids on a nice holiday.

Im clearly not getting through to you guys as you dont think people who are low paid jobs deserve TC to give them some form of decent living standard which is your choice and your opinion

You don't want decent, you want luxurious. Indeed, interesting as you didn't bother coming back to my response to your question about what I considered to be luxuries. And no, I don't think young people who have yet gained little experience of life should be entitled to a luxurious lifestyle paid by others.

The fact is people can afford things but then get abuse because they are claiming what they are ENTITLED too.

Indeed, and now they won't be. You can't have it both ways.

zagfles

Yankee1971 wrote: »

Hi, I am a single parent to 2 children under 16, work 20 hours a week and earn £9329 a year.
My combined monthly WTC and CTC is £676.06.
For 2015-2016, my annual WTC is £2782.07, CTC is £6108.54.
I would be most grateful if someone could tell me what I might expect to receive for 2016-2017. I do not envisage that my salary will increase.
Many thanks.
PS - this is my first posting, so still learning.

About £7455 total, drop of about £1436.

Yankee1971

Thank you, I thought so, just couldn't believe it.

Pedent

bloolagoon wrote: »

TC are benefits - a security net to provide essentials... Its not to bridge inequality - its a means tested benefit! It's suposed to provide a minimum to live on like any means tested benefit - just the minimum is only an arbitrary figure with many above on less and many below on more.

It's clear from the way that tax credits are designed that they aren't just a safety net.

When your income goes up you only lose 41%, soon to be 48%, of the increase. If you had enough but no more before, and you now have £1k more coming in, then if tax credits were just a safety net then they would be reduced by £1k so that you still have enough but no more. They aren't, so they're not.

Tax credits recipients are also incentivised to give money to charity. If you give £800 to charity using gift aid, then you must have £800 more than you need to live on. If tax credits were just a safety net then they would be reduced by £800 in the following year to leave you with enough but no more. They aren't (instead they're increased by £410, soon to be £480, to encourage you to do this), so they're not.

Tax credits recipients also receive more if they're in receipt of maternity pay than if they have the same income from other sources. If you receive maternity pay for 39 weeks in a year, your income is deemed to be £3900 lower than it is, giving you £1600, soon to be £1870, more in tax credits. If tax credits were just a safety net then people in the same circumstances would be given the same amount to live on. They aren't, so they're not.

From the way that they're designed, it looks to me as though they're intended to be a compromise between providing enough for those at the bottom of the income scale (especially families with dependent children), and maintaining income differentials to protect work incentives. Another way to describe that would be compressing the income distribution. Another way would be reducing inequality. Universal Credit is similar in its design.

It's obvious that you'd like tax credits to just be a safety net, providing recipients with enough to live on but no more (and perhaps not even that in some cases), but it's clear from the design of the system that they were intended to be something else, and that it's okay for people on tax credits to have disposable income.

bloolagoon

Pedent wrote: »

It's clear from the way that tax credits are designed that they aren't just a safety net.

When your income goes up you only lose 41%, soon to be 48%, of the increase. If you had enough but no more before, and you now have £1k more coming in, then if tax credits were just a safety net then they would be reduced by £1k so that you still have enough but no more. They aren't, so they're not.

Tax credits recipients are also incentivised to give money to charity. If you give £800 to charity using gift aid, then you must have £800 more than you need to live on. If tax credits were just a safety net then they would be reduced by £800 in the following year to leave you with enough but no more. They aren't (instead they're increased by £410, soon to be £480, to encourage you to do this), so they're not.

Tax credits recipients also receive more if they're in receipt of maternity pay than if they have the same income from other sources. If you receive maternity pay for 39 weeks in a year, your income is deemed to be £3900 lower than it is, giving you £1600, soon to be £1870, more in tax credits. If tax credits were just a safety net then people in the same circumstances would be given the same amount to live on. They aren't, so they're not.

From the way that they're designed, it looks to me as though they're intended to be a compromise between providing enough for those at the bottom of the income scale (especially families with dependent children), and maintaining income differentials to protect work incentives. Another way to describe that would be compressing the income distribution. Another way would be reducing inequality. Universal Credit is similar in its design.

It's obvious that you'd like tax credits to just be a safety net, providing recipients with enough to live on but no more (and perhaps not even that in some cases), but it's clear from the design of the system that they were intended to be something else, and that it's okay for people on tax credits to have disposable income.

In part I agree - but many benefits have tapers to income. Housing benefit being one, where they don't take £1 for £1. Other benefits do.

I agreed with TC when they first came out thought the idea was great but over the years I've seen the damage they've done.

Actually I do think they should have disposable income - you are working so of course you should have a life other than an existence I've akways said that and akways will say that. How much disposable income I guess is the grey area.

There's a poster on here whose salary I don't know but it's over the CB limit who pays into a pension to keep minimum "income" to get TC and has a lot of savings. Some may think that's MSE - this is a money saving site but I don't.

Any benefit that's means tested should in an ideal world mean that those claiming it have less income than those paying for it. In the same manner that someone out of work should have significantly less than someone who works - but that's not always true either. You need systems that encourage work and TC don't. The recent changes show this. It's also ridiculous to have means tested benefits that doesn't take savings into account. You can't claim that benefits are needed to prevent poverty if the recipients may not be in poverty.

What I do disagree with and caveat here that the following is a minority as most use them to live and have a few things that working should afford - is the attitude that they should have lifestyles those above have. You can't work 24 hours per couple (no disabilities or reason not to work full time) and expect holidays, cars, entertainment or things that 2 full time workers have.

beecher2

bloolagoon wrote: »

What I do disagree with and caveat here that the following is a minority as most use them to live and have a few things that working should afford - is the attitude that they should have lifestyles those above have. You can't work 24 hours per couple (no disabilities or reason not to work full time) and expect holidays, cars, entertainment or things that 2 full time workers have.

Unfortunately there is a very strong feeling of entitlement out there, and I don't know how you really break that. 'I want it so I should have it' - perhaps because there's more to have than there was when I was growing up! I still see a holiday and car as luxuries, but most don't any more. It is inconceivable to me that someone on a low wage would expect to run a car and go abroad, but it is inconceivable to them that they should do without.