kittenta Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 It's the same for us. I started full time and we no longer qualify. Sickening really isn't it, we work our backsides off and have to struggle financially as a result whilst others choose to be on benefits completely (not everyone, but a lot) and get everything thrown at them. Rent paid, no council tax to pay, where I live they are all off on their jollies too, many of them abroad. I sometimes wonder if it's all worth it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Oh I don't know what to do now! As my new boss is working for a brewery, they sort out the wages, and so he can't put me down as doing 16 hours, it will have to be 15, as he doesn't process the actual pay. Jobcentre advise me not to bother, but I want to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Been advised to try Avon or something similar to buy myself an extra couple of hours a week, but would have to register as self employed, and probably won't make anything Going to look into that now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The Tories are slashing benefits across the board...it's what they were elected to do, it was in their manifesto and people (not the majority) voted for them. So how you gonna vote next election? Is a government ever elected with the majority of people voting for them? Genuine question.. in 2010 I think the tories got the same percentage of the vote as Labour did in 2005 ... about 35-36% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Oh I don't know what to do now! As my new boss is working for a brewery, they sort out the wages, and so he can't put me down as doing 16 hours, it will have to be 15, as he doesn't process the actual pay. Jobcentre advise me not to bother, but I want to There are plenty of cleaning jobs offering just a couple of hours, I wouldn't think they will suit many people but it will put you over your 16 hours if you can fit one round your job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 That's madness! You're an hour out of their 'requirements' - but apparently the government want to encourage working families? Hope it works out that you can get WTC, for us, it's a lost cause... Nonsense! We're soon to have our first baby. We've been doing the maths, basically if my wife goes back to work one of us will be working simply to pay for child care. I do two jobs, but the second pays just enough to stop us claiming tax credits. The long and the short of it is if I give up my second job and my wife stays at home and we claim benefits on top of my wage we will be far, far better off than if she goes back to work or if I keep my second job. If the government want to encourage working families they are not going the right way about it. Now we both want to work, but Cameron and his lapdog seem to be creating a system where if you don't want to work you will be far better off. That is in no way shape or form encouraging working families Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Nonsense! We're soon to have our first baby. We've been doing the maths, basically if my wife goes back to work one of us will be working simply to pay for child care. I do two jobs, but the second pays just enough to stop us claiming tax credits. The long and the short of it is if I give up my second job and my wife stays at home and we claim benefits on top of my wage we will be far, far better off than if she goes back to work or if I keep my second job. If the government want to encourage working families they are not going the right way about it. Now we both want to work, but Cameron and his lapdog seem to be creating a system where if you don't want to work you will be far better off. That is in no way shape or form encouraging working families There is little point in the government paying for someone to look after your children when one of you can do it. If your wife stays at home she will be working and saving the tax payer the expense of caring for your child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Nonsense! We're soon to have our first baby. We've been doing the maths, basically if my wife goes back to work one of us will be working simply to pay for child care. I do two jobs, but the second pays just enough to stop us claiming tax credits. The long and the short of it is if I give up my second job and my wife stays at home and we claim benefits on top of my wage we will be far, far better off than if she goes back to work or if I keep my second job. If the government want to encourage working families they are not going the right way about it. Now we both want to work, but Cameron and his lapdog seem to be creating a system where if you don't want to work you will be far better off. That is in no way shape or form encouraging working families well you know what you have to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There is little point in the government paying for someone to look after your children when one of you can do it. If your wife stays at home she will be working and saving the tax payer the expense of caring for your child. I don't disagree. But in order for my wife (or me) to stay at home we will have to claim benefits, so whether the government pays someone or we do it ourselves it's still costing the tax payer one way or another. My point was that we actually want to work and the government aren't facillitating that, in fact they are making it easier for those that don't want to work to avoid doing so, that's what annoys me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I don't disagree. But in order for my wife (or me) to stay at home we will have to claim benefits, so whether the government pays someone or we do it ourselves it's still costing the tax payer one way or another. My point was that we actually want to work and the government aren't facillitating that, in fact they are making it easier for those that don't want to work to avoid doing so, that's what annoys me. But will the benefits be cheaper for the tax payer than the child care, if so then it’s better the tax payer if your wife to stays at home, the tax payer will also save because now there is a job available for someone that is unemployed. We need to get at least one person from every family into employment and encouraging one of the parents to stay at home and care for their children is one way of doing it. Then housing needs to be made more affordable so a family with one worker can afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.