OT:Govt Benefits - info needed.

Scott wrote in news:bv2g8g$nmtp5$1@ID-

Let's get this straight - you expect us to help you to identify ways that you can get us to support a larger family that you can't afford??

I could point you 'in the right direction' but I doubt you'd want to go there!

I know it may sound that way - but dont mean to.

All I am looking at the moment, is the options. I want another child - cannot afford one where I am based on property prices, cost of living etc. If I move up North, then cost of property is far less, aswell as cost of living. The job I do - the pay is not far off. JUst trying to find out to see if I can then get any benefits - as I damn dont get any at the moment. Thinks looking at - would I get a better tax break as wife would now longer be working etc.

Scott

Hi Scott

ignore the dork above. Its part of usenet that as well as advice you will also get a great deal of personal opinion.

The main source of funding for a family on a low income is tax credits. You are possibly already getting child tax credit. They are administered by the inland revenue and you can get information and online calculators here.

I've been in the position of my wife giving up paid work to care for our children when I wasn't particularly well paid and it worked out very well. It is surprising how much you can drop your outgoings if you really need to.

Neb

"Nebulous" wrote in news:401573e9$0$13355$ snipped-for-privacy@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

So, not content with being proud of choosing a lifestyle that others had to subsidise, you throw insults at someone who paid for your choice. It is unfortunate that people like you making these choices reduce the money that is available to support those who have little/no choice.

Who said anyone subsidised it?

I made the move as a lifestyle choice several years ago and did not get any additional benefits. It has a remarkably positive effect on the next generation though. Having a parent at home for them on a consistent basis is one of the best things we can give them- rather than a second car and foreign holidays.

The tax credits are there now for people who qualify. Whether you like it or not that includes people who have chosen to give up or not work so they can look after their children. This does not really affect the money available since so many people are addicted to the grindstone. The system is still skewed in favour of families with two people working, by getting two tax allowances for instance.

Neb

"Nebulous" wrote

What happens when *everyone* chooses to stop working and *decide* to live off benefits?? :-(

"Nebulous" wrote in news:40157f98$0$13349$ snipped-for-privacy@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

Anyone in receipt of any kind of 'benefit' is being subsidised.

Foregoing 'luxuries' in favour of supporting your children is clearly the right thing to do. Where we part company is that I object to paying tax to support other people's lifestyle choices, afterall we can't all make those same choices or there would be no tax revenue to pay for it.

Those families with two working parents, that you accuse the system of favouring, typically have childcare costs that greatly exceed the tax benefit of a second tax allowance, and provide additional tax revenue that supports the governments social programs(benefits, NHS, pensions etc.).

Thanks Nebulous

Its nice to hear from somone who was in a similar situation. Its going to be tough - but my wife really would like to spend time with the children as they grow up - and I give her 100% support in doing so.

I'll follow that think though - thanks.

Scott

Have you ever tried living on state benefits alone? I haven't but I have seen other people struggle with it.

If you read it again you will see that that is not what I am talking about. If you have a couple who both work and one gives up you do get increased tax credits, depending on your income. You can also save on childcare, a second car, and some other costs. You lose out because you get one basic tax allowance and probably still have to pay the same council tax. As I said it is a lifestyle choice. People who tell you they would love to stay at home and look after their children but they cannot afford to are often deluding themselves. They could afford to, but would find some of the sacrifices unpalatable.

Even when they would be better off most people dont. I was rather shocked to realise some 3-4 years ago that due to a particular set of circumstances I would actually be better off on benefits. Yet I wasn't tempted for a minute. Those circumstances have gone and I've no regrets I didn't pick it up.

Neb

I think I already said I didn't get any more benefits. I was receiving child benefit and we got nothing else when my wife gave up work.

Most people wont make those sacrifices however because they like to keep up with the Joneses (or Krokr's or Nebulae)

The job and tax revenue don't just disappear however. My wife gave up a job which had plenty of other suitable candidates. The person who got it paid the tax instead to provide those benefits.

The biggest problem the West faces is that we have an aging population and are not reproducing enough. We need to rectify that quickly, or we'll al land in old peoples homes without anyone to look after us!

Neb

If one parent gives up work the couple are often end up paying a *greater* percentage of their lower income in tax, even accounting for tax credits.

The system in this country of independent assessment for taxation but joint assessment for benefits is completely s**te. My wife and I would be much better off if we were treated as single people by the tax and benefits system, and not as a married couple with kids.

"Nebulous" wrote in news:40159202$0$9389$ snipped-for-privacy@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

Don't think anyone would want to keep up with me, don't know about you!! Seriously though, I agree with you and it's rather sad. However it's even more sad to see someone who doesn't need to looking for government subsidy because they want another child but can't support their current one. Perhaps more families where the wife has a higher earning potential, as the original poster, should consider the man staying home.

Not always true. Many companies when faced with someone leaving may well re-organise responsibilities with a net loss of tax revenue. Even when the job is replaced that is normally by someone alrady employed so there is a chain of impact which offers more chances for an employer(or two) to reduce his wage bill and hence tax revenue.

Perhaps if you bring up your children with old fashioned family values and the sense of responsibility you've expressed in this thread, you won't end up in an old folks home! You turn out to be rather different to the standard usenet contributor who starts with an insult!

What about a tax allowance? If everyone was allowed to use their tax allowance against the income which the government expects to support them (rather than only the income they themselves earn) would that make you happy? We'd be much better off than on the pathetic amount we get in tax credits and child benefit.

Working couples often have no childcare costs at all (eg if they both work part time or one works only when the kids are at school). If they do have childcare costs they could get tax credits to pay most of them. The system *heavily* favours parents who both work.

Here's an example.

Family A and B both have two kids.

In family A only the father works earning 17,000. In family B both parents work part time earning 6,000 each.

Family B will have a higher take home pay than family A after tax/NI/tax credits. Despite earning 5000 less gross.

Family B will be entitled to free prescriptions, dental treatment etc. Family A won't. Despite family A being on less net.

Family B will earn NI credits for both parents, family A won't (the mother gets HRP but that is NOT the same as NI credits).

Family B would get about 2800 in maternity & paternity allowance if they have another child. Family A will get 200.

Family A pay over 6 times more tax than family B.

"Andy Pandy" wrote in news:8qhRb.28031$ snipped-for-privacy@stones.force.net:

The tax system is unfair to most people in some way, particularly when viewed from their own perspective. If you change the system to effectively tax a family unit would this only be available for married people, those living together, those electing to be jointly taxed, and what about separated/divorced, two gay (wo)men living together......? Personally I prefer a tax system with no personal allowances, an initial rate of say 5%, rising in more smaller steps to a top rate of 50%. This would give you a greater take-home from your single 17k salary than two

Having never received any form of benefit, I'm not acquainted with the various benefits, their rates or applicability. However, I suspect that couples both doing low paid part-time work don't form the majority of dual income families. If you're suggesting that benefits should be based on on need, i.e. circumstances, including take-home pay rather than salary, then I would agree. However, I also tend to the view that if people can't afford to support additional kids then they shouldn't have them, and I don't want to support/subsidise them, and certainly not when someone is making a conscious lifestyle choice, as the original poster to this thread.

snip

I didn't read the original posters request like that at all. I saw someone who was taking a great deal of responsibility for himself- moving to a cheaper area, committing his wifes redundancy money to buy a house and providing a full-time parent for their children in their formative years. He was then asking what additional help he might get from the state when his family income was reduced. In my book that was quite reasonable especially as he was committing a great deal to his plan. There are still a lot of unknowns though- how easy his wife would find it to get a similar high paid job for instance.

snip

That is the grand plan- that they will support a reckless old age for me, if I look after them enough at the moment.

Uk.finance is a haven of petty pedantry, which is nevertheless a positive delight compared with some of the more unsavoury areas of Usenet. We rarely go in for out and out hostility. I insulted you because I saw a knee-jerk reaction to a request for help. As I've described above I saw him as being very responsible and felt your response was unhelpful. I guess we are coming from very different places. As I have said we have been there and have made those decisions prior to tax-credits and I certainly don't think we took an easy option. It was an option which has been very rewarding however.

Neb

"Nebulous" wrote in news:4015fe63$0$13345$ snipped-for-privacy@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

snip

As someone who has always paid tax and never received benefits, but nontheless is happy to support those who are suffering hardtimes, I don't see someone who chooses to put themselves in a position to take state benefits in the same light. I agree that the original poster was being very responsible in looking at the various options open to him, just don't agree that the taxpayers should have to support his choice.

snip

Even if you had been right about my perceived 'knee-jerk' reaction that doesn't validate your choice to insult me. For the record my reaction was far from 'knee-jerk', I re-read the original post several times, and was careful not to respond with insults despite my strong feelings. I was amazed that someone would not only choose to take state benefits, but would so publicly declare so! Yes, I know that there are many others who do so with far less thought, but the amount of thought someone puts into such a decision in no way reduces my unnecessary tax burden for someone else's lifestyle choice.

You are right, my response was unhelpful and was intended to be so, why would I help someone do something that I would have to pay for? One of the insidious aspects of our modern society is the belief that one is owed a living by everyone else, and the consequential reduction in personal responsibility. Every time we let someone get away with this selfish attitude the more it spreads, so I couldn't let the post go without comment.

When you say that the choice you made was very rewarding, that surely is/was a suitable payback for any hardship involved, so, in the original poster's instance, why should someone else pay for that same choice? You're probably right when you say 'we come from very different places' but perhaps next time you'll consider that possibility rather than weighing in with an unnecessary insult.

Although there are a few interesting points in your reasoning, I think you're missing the point. If people were not to have children because they couldn't afford it, then well, they wouldn't have chidlren. Where would that leave us in a few years? Where would that leave your pension for instance? You should see those benefits from the government as being an incentive to have children. Without incentives, people won't have children. It's that simple.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

"The system in this country of taxing higher income at a higher marginal rate is completely s**te. My wife and I would be much better off if there was just one single rate of income tax, somewhere in the middle of the current rates of 0% / 10% / 22% / 40%." :-)

Well, any system is going to be "s**te" for the people who would be better off with another system. Unfortunately, there is no system available which will make *everyone* better off! :-(

Pollux wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.clara.net:

snip

Not sure I agree that people wouldn't have children without incentives. As Neb himself pointed out, there are many benefits to having kids that make it well worth the hardship and cost involved.