Better off working or not?

cornishfairy

Hi, I am new so hope this post is ok. I have a 9 month old baby and currently receive Tax Credits of £113 per week which is very good. My partner earns approx. £17k and works 40 hours per week. I am not working at the moent as am looking after my baby but there is a job in the paper which is for 2 nights a week (so no childcare costs) and is for 20 hours and pays £65 before tax per night. If I was to go for this job, would the £90 ish that I would get after tax be worth it, i.e. would they reduce my £113 to about £20? So do anyone know if it would be worth my while doing this job or not as it is pointless being only slightly better off financially by working. Thanks

mummytofour

check out https://www.entitledto.cok

MrsE_2

cornishfairy wrote: »

Hi, I am new so hope this post is ok. I have a 9 month old baby and currently receive Tax Credits of £113 per week which is very good. My partner earns approx. £17k and works 40 hours per week. I am not working at the moent as am looking after my baby but there is a job in the paper which is for 2 nights a week (so no childcare costs) and is for 20 hours and pays £65 before tax per night. If I was to go for this job, would the £90 ish that I would get after tax be worth it, i.e. would they reduce my £113 to about £20? So do anyone know if it would be worth my while doing this job or not as it is pointless being only slightly better off financially by working. Thanks

Of course its pointless, stay on benefits (tax credits are benefits - whatever they are called).
Why work when you are better of financially to stay at home.

The government is responsible for this question to even be raised.....

cornishfairy

Hi, thanks for the replies. I checked out entitledto.co.uk and it works out that I would receive approx. £22 per week. So, with the £90 after tax that I would get, I would receive £112 per week, thereby being £1 per week worse off. It's amazing, you spend your life working and then you have a baby and enter the benefits trap - pathetic isn't it.

N71

I don't mean to sound funny or rude!!!

I have two kids, and i've worked all my life apart from maternity leave. I've worked out that i'm working for -£13 a week,when I take into account petrol, school dinners, nil housing benefit, nil council tax benefit etc etc.

But, apart from the money, working keeps me sane! For £1 difference a week, i'd work, for the benefit of my sanity!!

The benefits system is sh*t! There is no point in me working apart from it making me feel better about my self, like I have a purpose, and my kids grow up seeing that its a normal thing to work!!!

HC_2

MrsE wrote: »

Of course its pointless, stay on benefits (tax credits are benefits - whatever they are called).
Why work when you are better of financially to stay at home.

The government is responsible for this question to even be raised.....

MrsE is quite right. Why on earth should you consider supporting yourself when you can rely on others to help you! If you can get benefits to the equivalent of what you would earn, just stay at home.

I'm happy to support you, by a proportion of my taxes being paid to you in benefits. I'm sure others are too.

Please, don't worry yourself. Do go ahead in claiming the maximum from the welfare state. I for one am delighted to work while you sit on your backside.

cornishfairy

Right, I would just like to add the following:
I have worked ever since leaving school in well paid jobs and never claimed benefits before claiming Maternity Allowance which I was duly entitled to.
I own my own house thereby paying a mortgage
I do not receive any housing benefit, JSA, Council Tax relief etc.
As mentioned I have never claimed a penny from yours or my paid taxes before.
However, the Government are offering me the same money to stay at home and look after my child as I would if I was working. So, to help my 9 month old baby grow up in a loving family, play and have one to one care with her, it's not a difficult decision.
I fully intend to go back to work when she is old enough to appreciate nursery and get something out of it.
The moral side of working is not really relevant for me as she would not see me working as I would be cramming in a night job when she will be asleep.
I fully appreciate everyones comments but please do not lump me in the same category as someone who has never had a job and expects tax payers to support them.
The Government make up these rules, not me

HelenYorkshire

:T Well said!

It is too easy to generalise / lump people together.
Although I can see, in the current climate, why people living off other people's taxes is a sore point.

Personally I would value the one-to-one care for now, and like you say send the child to nursery / playgroup when they are old enough to socialise and enjoy it. No point having kids if you never see them.

HC_2

To claim benefits when absolutely necessary is one thing.

To choose to claim, rather than getting a job, is quite another.

cornishfairy

Not really understanding your point HC. Are you honestly saying that if the Government paid you the same to look after your child as you were paid to work and pay someone else to look after your child, then you would be more honourable than I and work? Fine, if that's how you wish to live your life but I would prefer to educate and nourish my child rather than let a stranger do it.

HC_2

cornishfairy wrote: »

Not really understanding your point HC. Are you honestly saying that if the Government paid you the same to look after your child as you were paid to work and pay someone else to look after your child, then you would be more honourable than I and work? Fine, if that's how you wish to live your life but I would prefer to educate and nourish my child rather than let a stranger do it.

It's not a case of being 'honourable'. I've never thought of it that way, anyway.

But the answer to your question is 'yes'.