# Just announced that child benefit to be stopped



## clara123

Just read on the BBC website that child benefit will be stopped for families where one parent earns more than £44k! My husband earns more than that but I don't and that payment goes to me for the kids! I know there has to be cuts made but it doesn't seem fair how they've worked it.

You could have 2 parents who earn £40k each so £80k between them and they will still get the payment but another family could have one parent working and earning £45k but they won't get the payment... Doesn't seem fair to me?!


----------



## bathbabe

tbh, iv got no hope of either me or my OH earning 44k, thats a hell of alot of money. He cant spare you some? X


----------



## Drazic<3

I think it's incredibly unfair. Personally, I believe it should have a cap at a household income, not once which penalises one worker families and benefits those who both work at a higher rate. You could jointly earn £87k and get child benefit, or have a household income of £44k and not. 

I feel it's just as unfair to allow people on higher incomes to get CB. The benefit of putting it in to an account and then giving your firstborn £9k when they turn 18 at the expense of the government when others use it as part of barely scraping together seems mad to me. Personally, if I was in Government I would cap it, then increase it for lower income households. 

But the Tories don't want to upset the married middle classes too much! :growlmad:


----------



## ellie27

That doesnt seem fair at all. 

I would be happy to lose it - and am sure there are loads folk out there who also dont need it, but there must be a better way than that!! It doesnt make sense!!!


----------



## Gingerspice

I agree it does seem a bit strange, but they've said the reason for this is because it would cost loads more to completely change the system to have to work out household earnings rather than just basing it directly individual tax codes. It would be pointless them trying to claw back money if it was to be spent just to allow them to rebuild the whole analysis system.

Although we are by no means rich, its not due to happen for a while, and to be honest the country is such a mess with debt that if you're earning over £40,000 which is well above the national average, then things should just be re-budgeted to allow for that loss. Given how easily mortgage payments could dramatically increase (have friends whose went up by £300 a month) then families should never max themselves out each month to account for such possibilities and do their best to live well within their means. I know that will really make many people berate me, but sometimes we all have to make cuts for the greater good. (and yes I know how cheesy that sounds, but why do people no longer give any consideration to the bigger picture and society as a whole)


----------



## lillybells

I wish me and OH could earn £44k put together but seems very unlikely as ever since loosing his job in May he has struggled to find anything so is doing some labour work for peanuts! 

I think it is fair as if one parent is earning £44k do you really need that extra £20pw so desperately. Cuts need to be made to reduce this massive deficit we have, it will benefit your children in the long run. However I do agree with your point about both parents still getting it if they both earn £40k.


----------



## stephx

Be fair... if you earn anywhere near that amount, im sure losing £20 a week wont really affect your finances. Just my opinion x


----------



## LankyDoodle

I think it's where household income is 44k or above isn't it. A household bringing in 80k a year won't get it. I don't think it should be stopped because it will make those of us who work hard and can't get anything, feel very bitter. It is the only universal benefit and that is what it was built on. However, cuts have to be made somewhere.

44k is not a huge amount, especially when you've paid tax etc out of that. But you won't be on the bones of your arse.

Hmmm just seen it's being touted as being cut for HRTPs not for households earning over 44k altogether. Extremely unfair.


----------



## Youngling

I wish me and my OH earned that much put together!! Im sure he could spare u some surely?
The way they have done it is wrong but 44k is alot of money. Well it is to me anyway
xx


----------



## babyblog

clara123 said:


> Just read on the BBC website that child benefit will be stopped for families where one parent earns more than £44k! My husband earns more than that but I don't and that payment goes to me for the kids! I know there has to be cuts made but it doesn't seem fair how they've worked it.
> 
> You could have 2 parents who earn £40k each so £80k between them and they will still get the payment but another family could have one parent working and earning £45k but they won't get the payment... Doesn't seem fair to me?!

I agree with you. Seems a strange way to have worked things out. And i understand what you mean about that money going in to your account and being for your children.

I think CB should remain a universal benefit for all children.

We have had this debate a billion times, those that earn below this amount always reply they wish they earned that much and others say they should just budget better and do they really need the money! But if your mortgage was taken out based on 2 FT salaries, and then you have a baby and you are on mat leave or go back PT and your mortgage stays the same or increases as it usually does, then yes , 20 a week is actually very useful.


----------



## Drazic<3

LankyDoodle said:


> I think it's where household income is 44k or above isn't it. A household bringing in 80k a year won't get it. I don't think it should be stopped because it will make those of us who work hard and can't get anything, feel very bitter. It is the only universal benefit and that is what it was built on. However, cuts have to be made somewhere.
> 
> 44k is not a huge amount, especially when you've paid tax etc out of that. But you won't be on the bones of your arse.
> 
> Hmmm just seen it's being touted as being cut for HRTPs not for households earning over 44k altogether. Extremely unfair.

That;s what I thought, but it's wrong. Its on individual income - so if a single parent earns £44k they won't get it, but if within a couple one earns £43k and the other earns £43k they will. That to me is fundermentally unfair.

Personally, I dont think it should be paid to any househlds earning over £44k jointly.


----------



## _Vicky_

I totally agree with it should be household income BUT as someone else said to spend millions to put the system in place to allow that to happen is totally counter productive. I truly believe they would be b*ggered in whatever they did BUT totally agree that the snide-ness at how they have manipulated it so the married dual income party electorate that i the main stay of their followers wont be affected.

Also (and yes controversial here) sorry but you vote tory an what can you expect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wannabewillow

I think CB should remain a universal benefit for all children.

We have had this debate a billion times, those that earn below this amount always reply they wish they earned that much and others say they should just budget better and do they really need the money! But if your mortgage was taken out based on 2 FT salaries, and then you have a baby and you are on mat leave or go back PT and your mortgage stays the same or increases as it usually does, then yes , 20 a week is actually very useful.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree. My husband and I are in a fortunate situation, I don't deny that for a minute. However, our jobs are high pressure and as a result reasonably well paid (My husband is a dept. head in a school and I'm a theatre nurse in a Childrens' hospital). However, as a result of the new Government, being Public Sector workers, our wages have been capped for at least 2 years. We aren't entitled to CTC or WFTC. Our Childcare is £600 pcm. Yes, the CB makes a huge difference to us.

Sorry, the first few paragraphs have been quoted just in case it doesn't make sense.

I'm happy to make sacrifices and we're lucky to be in the position where we can, but we're in the situation where practically all the cuts affect us. I feel that this Government do not appreciate Public Services and have it in for families. I apologise if this offends anyone, this is not my intention.


----------



## Drazic<3

_Vicky_ said:


> I totally agree with it should be household income BUT as someone else said to spend millions to put the system in place to allow that to happen is totally counter productive. I truly believe they would be b*ggered in whatever they did BUT totally agree that the snide-ness at how they have manipulated it so the married dual income party electorate that i the main stay of their followers wont be affected.
> 
> Also (and yes controversial here) sorry but you vote tory an what can you expect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed. That has always been the thought behind universal benefit, it costs less than means testing.

Lying arses said in only May they wouldnt touch CB as it 'erodes confidence'


----------



## wannabewillow

_Vicky_ said:


> Also (and yes controversial here) sorry but you vote tory an what can you expect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I voted Labour. Had initially intended to vote Lib Dem, but I live in a Labour stronghold and it would have been a wasted vote. Glad I never voted Lib Dem as a result.


----------



## RCMC

I'm sorry to be contraversial but I am quite cross about this announcement. It seems really unfair that some households will be able to claim child benefit if both parents earn under £44k (and therefore could have a combined income of around £85k) but ones where there is only person earning above £44k can't. Seems highly unfair to me. 

I could accept the change to our household income if it was alongside other cuts in benefits too as it does seem that there are lots of families out there (my brothers and my husbands sisters are included!) that deliberately earn under certain amounts to ensure that they receive the maximum amount of benefit available to them. I'd like to know what is going to be done about families such as this. For example, my sister in laws household income is well over a £100 more a week than mine and my husbands because she chooses to work 16 hrs a week and no more so that she gets all sorts of benefits paid to her whereas My husband works full time and I returned to work when my little one was 7 months old to put money into the household. Neither myself or my husband has ever claimed any benefit other than child benefit in our whole lives yet my sister in law has never had a full time job at 42 and has claimed benefit for all of her adult life in one way or another. 

Sometimes it seems like the system is loaded against people who are working hard to provide for themselves and to improve their quality of life. I do think the system should provide money for those in need and fully agree with this principle but equally if I have to accept £80 less a month in my household income I think that the same rules of fairness should apply to others. This, for example, takes no account of circumstances such as having to pay maintenance to other children or elderly relatives living with you due to illness.

In addition, I thought that this was a benefit for children and not parents and as such should be for all children.


----------



## discoclare

I will be sorry not to see my extra 80 quid a month but I think it's fair enough that it be means tested. When I mentioned to OH about it this morning he went into a massive rant about how I should get over it (I only mentioned it, I didn't complain!) and how CB should have been reformed a long time ago!

However I agree it should be based on joint income rather than single person income. You have one family with one working parent earning 45k and a stay at home parent and they lose CB; then another family where both parents earn 40k each and still get CB! Crazy.


----------



## babyblog

RCMC said:


> I'm sorry to be contraversial but I am quite cross about this announcement. It seems really unfair that some households will be able to claim child benefit if both parents earn under £44k (and therefore could have a combined income of around £85k) but ones where there is only person earning above £44k can't. Seems highly unfair to me.
> 
> I could accept the change to our household income if it was alongside other cuts in benefits too as it does seem that there are lots of families out there (my brothers and my husbands sisters are included!) that deliberately earn under certain amounts to ensure that they receive the maximum amount of benefit available to them. I'd like to know what is going to be done about families such as this. For example, my sister in laws household income is well over a £100 more a week than mine and my husbands because she chooses to work 16 hrs a week and no more so that she gets all sorts of benefits paid to her whereas My husband works full time and I returned to work when my little one was 7 months old to put money into the household. Neither myself or my husband has ever claimed any benefit other than child benefit in our whole lives yet my sister in law has never had a full time job at 42 and has claimed benefit for all of her adult life in one way or another.
> 
> Sometimes it seems like the system is loaded against people who are working hard to provide for themselves and to improve their quality of life. I do think the system should provide money for those in need and fully agree with this principle but equally if I have to accept £80 less a month in my household income I think that the same rules of fairness should apply to others. This, for example, takes no account of circumstances such as having to pay maintenance to other children or elderly relatives living with you due to illness.
> 
> In addition, I thought that this was a benefit for children and not parents and as such should be for all children.


That would make me cross too. I think it is really sly to try to work out the minimum hours you can work to enable you to get the most benefits! Do people honestly think like that?


----------



## Scooby12345

is it really child benefit and not child tax credit thats being stopped for those in the higher tax bracket?


----------



## RCMC

Scooby12345 said:


> is it really child benefit and not child tax credit thats being stopped for those in the higher tax bracket?

It's definitely child benefit - i was confused at first too because local radio said it was child tax but on the BBC it says child benefit.


----------



## babyblog

Scooby12345 said:


> is it really child benefit and not child tax credit thats being stopped for those in the higher tax bracket?

Yeah, some families will be losing both


----------



## Scooby12345

babyblog said:


> Scooby12345 said:
> 
> 
> is it really child benefit and not child tax credit thats being stopped for those in the higher tax bracket?
> 
> Yeah, some families will be losing bothClick to expand...

Thanks i hadnt heard that, wont effect us but in all honesty i think its quite strange we still get child benefit in an over populated world.


----------



## RCMC

babyblog said:


> RCMC said:
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to be contraversial but I am quite cross about this announcement. It seems really unfair that some households will be able to claim child benefit if both parents earn under £44k (and therefore could have a combined income of around £85k) but ones where there is only person earning above £44k can't. Seems highly unfair to me.
> 
> I could accept the change to our household income if it was alongside other cuts in benefits too as it does seem that there are lots of families out there (my brothers and my husbands sisters are included!) that deliberately earn under certain amounts to ensure that they receive the maximum amount of benefit available to them. I'd like to know what is going to be done about families such as this. For example, my sister in laws household income is well over a £100 more a week than mine and my husbands because she chooses to work 16 hrs a week and no more so that she gets all sorts of benefits paid to her whereas My husband works full time and I returned to work when my little one was 7 months old to put money into the household. Neither myself or my husband has ever claimed any benefit other than child benefit in our whole lives yet my sister in law has never had a full time job at 42 and has claimed benefit for all of her adult life in one way or another.
> 
> Sometimes it seems like the system is loaded against people who are working hard to provide for themselves and to improve their quality of life. I do think the system should provide money for those in need and fully agree with this principle but equally if I have to accept £80 less a month in my household income I think that the same rules of fairness should apply to others. This, for example, takes no account of circumstances such as having to pay maintenance to other children or elderly relatives living with you due to illness.
> 
> In addition, I thought that this was a benefit for children and not parents and as such should be for all children.
> 
> 
> That would make me cross too. I think it is really sly to try to work out the minimum hours you can work to enable you to get the most benefits! Do people honestly think like that?Click to expand...

Unfortunately there's lots that do. As I said both my brothers family and my Sister in law's are all getting quite a lot of help via the benefit system and my sister in law has been offered full time work on a number of occasions but refuses it because she is better off doing 16hours maximum and then getting top up benefits. Between all her benefits and free dental, school meals, maintenance from her ex, etc she is doing quite well. She is able to smoke 20 a day and goes out on the p*** a couple of times a week quite comfortably. I know that she has been judgemental of me for returning to work when my little one was 7 months when she was a SAHM for several years with hers but then as I said has claimed benefit for most of her adult life. I find it hard to keep my mouth shut when she talks about these sort of topics. 

As I've said though I can see why Child Benefit needs reforming I just think it's an easy target for the Government and that the whole system needs reforming. There are much worse benefit scandals taking place than someone on a higher tax band getting £20 a week for their children! 

Sorry for ranting it just gets my goat that it's so unfair.


----------



## Hen

Well that pretty much sucks!! I've been looking into whether or not I should go back to work, from a financial perspective, and had been counting the CB towards my "income" should it be viable fo rme not to go back (and therefore not put Lottie into childcare) My husband earns about £45k, so just over the limit, which is great, and I appreciate how lucky we are (although to get that money he never sees Lottie during the week, so it has it's downsides too), but the loss of CB will mean that I have to go back to work. How is that the best way of doing things? 

Does anyone know when the change will be introduced?


----------



## cherryglitter

Me and OH will never earn that money together, let alone one of us alone!!
I've said it before, it won't affect the people who genuinely need these benefits!


----------



## RCMC

Hen said:


> Well that pretty much sucks!! I've been looking into whether or not I should go back to work, from a financial perspective, and had been counting the CB towards my "income" should it be viable fo rme not to go back (and therefore not put Lottie into childcare) My husband earns about £45k, so just over the limit, which is great, and I appreciate how lucky we are (although to get that money he never sees Lottie during the week, so it has it's downsides too), but the loss of CB will mean that I have to go back to work. How is that the best way of doing things?
> 
> Does anyone know when the change will be introduced?

They've said 2013 but I'm not sure on when during that year. Sorry that it's affecting you so badly!


----------



## Drazic<3

cherryglitter said:


> Me and OH will never earn that money together, let alone one of us alone!!
> I've said it before, it won't affect the people who genuinely need these benefits!

But they are effected - they have already said after promising they wouldn't touch CB that it will be frozen for a minimum of three years. 

My husband and me are a mile under the cut off, but I think it is unfair to suggest it won't effect people. Some SAHMs rely on CB for their independence, whatever income their husbands earn. I have never had a family and an income of £44k so I can't really judge. As I said, my personal inclination is that it should be not given to families earning high incomes at all, but I understand that means testing costs more than universality so it is counter productive. 

But to me, the resounding unfair is that families earning £83k could still get it when many earning under £44k won't. It's done to placate their voter pool, it has nothing to do with cuts. It's all about ideology.


----------



## clara123

I do appreciate that £44k is a lot of money but by the time mortgage and bills are paid, after tax it doesn't leave a great deal. Our mortgage alone is £950 a month and our house is by no means lavish, just an average 3 bed semi. You'd struggle to find a two bed house in my area for less than £175k so it's not that cheap to live.

Child benefit is the only benefit we get (got) as we earn too much for tax credits etc. So yes £130 a month does help a lot( for two kids). I work for the nhs so my salary has been capped for two years, I am now losing this money and the cost of living constantly seems to be going up.

So I do appreciate that we are fortunate to both be working and have a good wage between us but we have bills to pay and struggle like everyone else, so just seems unfair that some couples earning £80 between them will still get the payment when others won't. Just my take on things x


----------



## RCMC

But to me, the resounding unfair is that families earning £83k could still get it when many earning under £44k won't. It's done to placate their voter pool, it has nothing to do with cuts. *It's all about ideology*.[/QUOTE]

I agree - I see that as yet the Tories have not taken on the Queen and other multimillionaire pensioners who will still be entitled to claim their winter fuel allowance,free bus pass and free TV licence.


----------



## Louisaxx

It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc 
Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????


----------



## Drazic<3

RCMC said:


> But to me, the resounding unfair is that families earning £83k could still get it when many earning under £44k won't. It's done to placate their voter pool, it has nothing to do with cuts. *It's all about ideology*.

Totally! Wouldn't dare challenge their majority voter pool. Though I wish they would - too many of these hypocrites challenge CB yet claim there WFA with thousands in the bank.


----------



## Drazic<3

Louisaxx said:


> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????

Funny how sterotypes go both ways isn't it? People over £44k are rich, and people under are smoking chavs. :rofl:


----------



## cherryglitter

Louisaxx said:


> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> *Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????*

Haha what a load of crap. Sorry. But those people are the ones who annoy me the most! & I guess you could class me as one of them because I earn less than 44k, as does OH.


----------



## Louisaxx

and I'm sorry if that sounds like a rant but i hate the fact that some people think their benefits are more important to them than our wages are to us, very self centered in my opinion!


----------



## cherryglitter

Drazic<3 said:


> Louisaxx said:
> 
> 
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????
> 
> Funny how sterotypes go both ways isn't it? People over £44k are rich, and people under are smoking chavs. :rofl:Click to expand...

I know!! :thumbup:


----------



## aob1013

stephx said:


> Be fair... if you earn anywhere near that amount, im sure losing £20 a week wont really affect your finances. Just my opinion x

:thumbup:


----------



## ClaireLouise

Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.

We all work hard for our money regardless of what we get paid. So if you earn £45k you are working harder than someone who works the same hours for minimum pay? 

Yes the rule is unfair on the principle that its based on one persons income, but other than that, thats the only thing i find unfair.


----------



## cherryglitter

Louisaxx said:


> and I'm sorry if that sounds like a rant but i hate the fact that some people think their benefits are more important to them than our wages are to us, very self centered in my opinion!

What? Who ever gave you that impression!
Me and OH both work so im not too sure what you're getting at there. My wages are important to us BOTH.

I too get pissed off with 'those' people who take the piss out of the government and those that work. 

But benefits are there for those that NEED them imo. If I had 44k a year, I know I wouldn't miss £20 a week? If me and OH both earnt 44k a year, I would not miss £20 a week.


----------



## clara123

Ha ha so Britain is full of rolls Royce driving, posh people living in their fifteen bed mansions and next door are the drinking, smoking foul mouthed burberry wearing chavs. Love it!


----------



## cherryglitter

ClaireLouise said:


> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.
> 
> *We all work hard for our money regardless of what we get paid. So if you earn £45k you are working harder than someone who works the same hours for minimum pay?*
> 
> Yes the rule is unfair on the principle that its based on one persons income, but other than that, thats the only thing i find unfair.

Well said!!


----------



## Louisaxx

well i'm still entitled to it and i would happily take vouchers!!!! And it's not aload of crap I work in a school and see this all the time; parents driving around in nice cars, dripping in gold, designer togs from top to toe and their child tells me, we can't afford any pumps???!!!!!!!! Hello Mr Cameron!!!!!!!!!! Sort it out!


----------



## leelee

I think it should be based on joint incomes as it doesn't seem fair that higher earners would still be entitled to it. My OH doesn't earn 45k but if he did I wouldn't have to return to work.

It is all relative though, just because you are a high earner doesn't mean you have anymore disposable income. You might have a high mortgage, live in a more expensive area etc etc


----------



## gills8752

ClaireLouise said:


> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.

My household would be classed as a high earner by the standards of the majority on this forum - just under the cut off for the child benefit. Every month I am over my overdraft, have at least £50 of charges a month because of this, do not go out partying/drinking, don't buy clothes/shoes, live in a pokey flat with a 12 yr old car. Every month I see my bank account empty on the 3rd and have to magic food and petrol from various favours off the family. Just because our earnings are high it doesn't mean the money after the bills have gone is high too.

I get quite annoyed that some (not pointing fingers at anyone) people think that just because you earn a good wage it means you have bags of money and wear jimmy choo's everyday.


----------



## cherryglitter

Louisaxx said:


> well i'm still entitled to it and i would happily take vouchers!!!! And it's not aload of crap I work in a school and see this all the time; parents driving around in nice cars, dripping in gold, designer togs from top to toe and their child tells me, we can't afford any pumps???!!!!!!!! Hello Mr Cameron!!!!!!!!!! Sort it out!

Im not saying that isn't true.

I mean it's a load of crap for it to be okay because they're earning less than 44k. I agree it should be given in vouchers. As then it would be used for what it is intended for.


----------



## cherryglitter

gills8752 said:


> ClaireLouise said:
> 
> 
> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.
> 
> My household would be classed as a high earner by the standards of the majority on this forum - just under the cut off for the child benefit. Every month I am over my overdraft, have at least £50 of charges a month because of this, do not go out partying/drinking, don't buy clothes/shoes, live in a pokey flat with a 12 yr old car. Every month I see my bank account empty on the 3rd and have to magic food and petrol from various favours off the family. Just because our earnings are high it doesn't mean the money after the bills have gone is high too.
> 
> I get quite annoyed that some (not pointing fingers at anyone) people think that just because you earn a good wage it means you have bags of money and wear jimmy choo's everyday.Click to expand...


And I have all the same problems/outgoings as you (give or take!) and me and OH earn nowhere near 44k, between us!!


----------



## vhal_x

My OH doesn't have a very well paid job and I'm currently unemployed as I had found out I was pregnant upon finishing my last year of school. He earns less than £10,000 a year and I am currently on IS, but will be looking for work once LO is 6 months but I doubt I'll be on a very good wage, so between us we won't even earn over £44k, and I still think (hope, rather) we'll cope okay, so for people earning over that, even where there is only one working parent, a decrease in income of £20 a week will not be enough to leave them completely f*cked. :shrug: xx ​


----------



## AimeeM

Louisaxx said:


> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????

What a horrible way to direct a comment at people earning a low wage. Fags and booze? So people earning over 44k don't drink and smoke do they not?

My hubby got laid off a year ago and the only job he could get is working minimum wage, yes £5.83p and hour, 12 hour night shifts in an old peoples home, cleaning crap all night. He works his frigging arse off all week for hardly anything then there are people like you who will ALWAYS assume the worst and look down your nose at people on a low income thinking all we want is fags and booze and the like.

You want to take a look at your narrow-mind and think a little deeper at the situations people are in and realise not all of us are here through choice love.

Edit- I forgot to add, i dont smoke or drink btw.


----------



## gills8752

cherryglitter said:


> gills8752 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClaireLouise said:
> 
> 
> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.
> 
> My household would be classed as a high earner by the standards of the majority on this forum - just under the cut off for the child benefit. Every month I am over my overdraft, have at least £50 of charges a month because of this, do not go out partying/drinking, don't buy clothes/shoes, live in a pokey flat with a 12 yr old car. Every month I see my bank account empty on the 3rd and have to magic food and petrol from various favours off the family. Just because our earnings are high it doesn't mean the money after the bills have gone is high too.
> 
> I get quite annoyed that some (not pointing fingers at anyone) people think that just because you earn a good wage it means you have bags of money and wear jimmy choo's everyday.Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have all the same problems/outgoings as you (give or take!) and me and OH earn nowhere near 44k, between us!!Click to expand...

I think in an ideal world haha: like that would ever exist) benefits should be done on an affordability calculator at regular intervals. Regardless of income - if after bills have left your account and you've bugger all left then you should get benefits.
But that would never happen! :dohh:


----------



## clara123

Me and my husband have both worked really hard to get and keep our jobs so I'm not being made to feel guilty that we earn more than others. And I'm not saying that anyone earning any less doesn't work as hard- of course they do.

I don't think it's fair to say that if you earn £44k you're not going to miss £20 a week- everyones circumstances are different and although I can live without it, it does help to receive it. We pay a LOT of tax but don't seem to receive much back from it. It seems sometimes that the better you do, the more you're penalized in this country.


----------



## Miss_Bump

Its called Child Benefit but they won't pay it to the child?

I've set up a standing order for the money to go into Evies bank account.

In my eyes it's her money, not mine so I feel every child should receive this
xx


----------



## ClaireLouise

Stupid how its worked out isnt it?!

CTC are based on joint income etc, should be the same! Who knows, i could have won the lottery by then, if i do, il give u all £20 a week :)


----------



## Louisaxx

well it looks like we all agree on one thing then, if the money is spent as it is intended and if the family needs it, regardless of income it is an important benefit, this is how i see it anyway! We are all probably struggling at the moment, some more than others (again regardless of income) so whether you earn 44k or not it is important to mothers and children and that's how it has always been, or that's what I thought, we're all in the same boat girls!!!


----------



## gills8752

ClaireLouise said:


> S Who knows, i could have won the lottery by then, if i do, il give u all £20 a week :)

haha - I'll hold you to that!! :haha:


----------



## ClaireLouise

Breaking News!

ClaireLouise wins £10,000,000 and is being chased around the country by mob of angry mums ;)


----------



## cherryglitter

I can't believe it's going to save the country 1 billion!
Its madness. 
Imagine how much we could save if they sorted the whole benefit system right out! I think it should be advertised more how to report benefit thieves too!! Also how easy it is to do it online, I could be being blind, but I don't think ive sen it advertised...


Or have I.. 
But that's me going off on a tangent haha!


----------



## Natnee

clara123 said:


> Me and my husband have both worked really hard to get and keep our jobs so I'm not being made to feel guilty that we earn more than others. And I'm not saying that anyone earning any less doesn't work as hard- of course they do.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that if you earn £44k you're not going to miss £20 a week- everyones circumstances are different and although I can live without it, it does help to receive it. We pay a LOT of tax but don't seem to receive much back from it. It seems sometimes that the better you do, the more you're penalized in this country.

I agree! At the moment OH earns just under so we would still qualify. But if he was to get a payrise then obviously would lose it, and the also have to pay MORE tax and get nothing. Just pay for all those benefit scroungers. I don't mean by this anyone who would still qualify for CB, not at all! I mean genuine scroungers!


----------



## Louisaxx

AimeeM said:


> Louisaxx said:
> 
> 
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????
> 
> What a horrible way to direct a comment at people earning a low wage. Fags and booze? So people earning over 44k don't drink and smoke do they not?
> 
> My hubby got laid off a year ago and the only job he could get is working minimum wage, yes £5.83p and hour, 12 hour night shifts in an old peoples home, cleaning crap all night. He works his frigging arse off all week for hardly anything then there are people like you who will ALWAYS assume the worst and look down your nose at people on a low income thinking all we want is fags and booze and the like.
> 
> You want to take a look at your narrow-mind and think a little deeper at the situations people are in and realise not all of us are here through choice love.
> 
> Edit- I forgot to add, i dont smoke or drink btw.Click to expand...

like i said i earn a low wage too and I will still be entitled to child benefit so how am i looking down my nose at you?? Anyway not getting into an argument


----------



## Jolinar

I agree some cuts need to be made but this seems bonkers to me. So a single parent earning 45k would be penalised but a couple earning 80k wouldn't? Daft. Surely they could have utilised the tax credit network to get this done on household income without it costing a bomb to implement?


----------



## cherryglitter

Has anything been said about the fact that a couple earning up to 80k could still get it?
Surely the government aren't going to be that stupid...


----------



## discoclare

Miss_Bump said:


> Its called Child Benefit but they won't pay it to the child?
> 
> I've set up a standing order for the money to go into Evies bank account.
> 
> In my eyes it's her money, not mine so I feel every child should receive this
> xx

Well done you for putting it aside for your daughter later in life but actually that's not what it was intended for. It is to help *parents* with the costs of raising their child (food, clothing etc), hence why some people (including myself) believe that it's fair that it should be given to those who need it most and others can do without (though as I said in my previous post I think it should be based on joint income rather than single incomes). Whilst others think it should be universal benefit to help with raising all the UK children. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that it was originally intended for all families so that there wouldn't be a stigma in society about receiving it, but now times are tough and there's nowt money to go round.


----------



## graci3

I think it's a step in the right direction and seems reasonably fair. I think people on low incomes/benefits etc need to remember that where salary is concerned it is all relative. The more money you earn, the more tax, the higher your mortgage (probably). My income on its own isn't anywhere near £44k but DH and I's income joined together is just over £44k so we will still recieve it but to be honest I don't feel that we will need it. Our child isn't here yet though so I may change my opinion on that one!

Also I noticed someone posted about people who work 16 hours a week so they still get their full benefits. To be honest I don't see a problem with this thinking, I would actually think that it is good that they are working. Benefits aren't a considerable amount (I understand) so as a parent it makes sense to make as much money as you can to help provide for your family. This isn't scamming the system. I would actually rather that people did this as it shows they are being pro-active and the children are at least seeing that going out to work is the 'norm' whereas there are a lot of children who aren't witnessing this nowadays. Obviously the issue is whether the extra money earned goes on the children but this is a whole other issue.


----------



## discoclare

cherryglitter said:


> Has anything been said about the fact that a couple earning up to 80k could still get it?
> Surely the government aren't going to be that stupid...

yes, lots has been said about this! OH says that he thinks the reason gov are doing it like this (he also agrees with me that it should be based on joint income) is because it will be far simpler way of working out who is entitled (I dunno he understands how the tax office is run better than me :shrug:)


----------



## bathbabe

tbh, iv got no hope of either me or my OH earning 44k, thats a hell of alot of money. He cant spare you some? X


----------



## cherryglitter

discoclare said:


> cherryglitter said:
> 
> 
> Has anything been said about the fact that a couple earning up to 80k could still get it?
> Surely the government aren't going to be that stupid...
> 
> yes, lots has been said about this! OH says that he thinks the reason gov are doing it like this (he also agrees with me that it should be based on joint income) is because it will be far simpler way of working out who is entitled (I dunno he understands how the tax office is run better than me :shrug:)Click to expand...

Okay they must be a bit daft haha!
Or is it the person claiming the benefit.. if they earn over 44k it's stopped?


----------



## bathbabe

sorry. Didnt mean to post that again


----------



## cherryglitter

bathbabe said:


> sorry. Didnt mean to post that again

I thought I had de ja vu! :haha:


----------



## leelee

AimeeM said:


> Louisaxx said:
> 
> 
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????
> 
> What a horrible way to direct a comment at people earning a low wage. Fags and booze? So people earning over 44k don't drink and smoke do they not?
> 
> My hubby got laid off a year ago and the only job he could get is working minimum wage, yes £5.83p and hour, 12 hour night shifts in an old peoples home, cleaning crap all night. He works his frigging arse off all week for hardly anything then there are people like you who will ALWAYS assume the worst and look down your nose at people on a low income thinking all we want is fags and booze and the like.
> 
> You want to take a look at your narrow-mind and think a little deeper at the situations people are in and realise not all of us are here through choice love.
> 
> Edit- I forgot to add, i dont smoke or drink btw.Click to expand...

Bit off topic but just wondering what you mean by 'cleaning crap all night'?


----------



## vhal_x

> Originally Posted by *Louisaxx*
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????

In reference to this, my OH earns less than £10k a year and I'm on IS at the moment, (will be looking for work once LO is 6 months) so apparently we will spend our CB on fags and booze?

Sorry but this is a very prejudiced and disgusting way to look and things, and yes I know it's just your opinion, but it is a very tar-them-all-with-one-brush type of opinion. 

I'm 18 and so is OH so maybe we would come under even more fire from you for being teen parents, but neither of us drink or smoke. The CB we get will be going to our son, because it's money that we are getting for *him*.

Granted, there will be people out there who do spend their CB on drink, drugs and cigarettes, but it is *beyond* unfair to just assume that everyone who earns a low income does.

Even with our low income, I don't think we would be completely out of pocket even if _we_ had to give up our CB, but obviously, we will still receive it until LO is 6 months, and I *highly* doubt I will get a job paying in excess of £44k a year, so we will most likely get it even once both of us are working, and I will be _very_ grateful for it, but if I wasn't going to get it, I would still get by perfectly well.

Yes I know there are people out there who will find that suddenly losing it will have an effect, but TBH, if it is going to leave them struggling so much that they can't afford rent, couldn't they try and get somewhere else that they _will_ be able to afford before it comes into place (as it's not for three years!).

Just my opinion on things :shrug: xx​


----------



## wannabewillow

ClaireLouise said:


> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Feel a wee bit judged byt this comment. I've lived below the breadline for more years than I've been over it. Not all 'high earners' were born with a silver spoon in their mouth! Have lived for many years on beans on toast and worrying about my electricity being cut off. Now I have to worry about being able to afford my child care and mortgage and my house is by no means lavish BTW.


----------



## discoclare

cherryglitter said:


> discoclare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cherryglitter said:
> 
> 
> Has anything been said about the fact that a couple earning up to 80k could still get it?
> Surely the government aren't going to be that stupid...
> 
> yes, lots has been said about this! OH says that he thinks the reason gov are doing it like this (he also agrees with me that it should be based on joint income) is because it will be far simpler way of working out who is entitled (I dunno he understands how the tax office is run better than me :shrug:)Click to expand...
> 
> Okay they must be a bit daft haha!
> Or is it the person claiming the benefit.. if they earn over 44k it's stopped?Click to expand...

It'll be either parent. My OH is self-employed so he's guessing there will be a bit on his tax return asking him about children and whether the person claiming child benefit (moi) is a higher rate tax payer. As I said, I do believe it's something that should be means tested given the current economic climate but I do hope it's not going to be open to too much fraud (I know fraud isn't the word I mean but I can't think of the word I mean when you aren't entitled but you play the system to get the benefit anyway).


----------



## cherryglitter

leelee said:


> AimeeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louisaxx said:
> 
> 
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????
> 
> What a horrible way to direct a comment at people earning a low wage. Fags and booze? So people earning over 44k don't drink and smoke do they not?
> 
> My hubby got laid off a year ago and the only job he could get is working minimum wage, yes £5.83p and hour, 12 hour night shifts in an old peoples home, cleaning crap all night. He works his frigging arse off all week for hardly anything then there are people like you who will ALWAYS assume the worst and look down your nose at people on a low income thinking all we want is fags and booze and the like.
> 
> You want to take a look at your narrow-mind and think a little deeper at the situations people are in and realise not all of us are here through choice love.
> 
> Edit- I forgot to add, i dont smoke or drink btw.Click to expand...
> 
> Bit off topic but just wondering what you mean by 'cleaning crap all night'?Click to expand...

To be honest, me and OH both work in care homes, and I would call it cleaning crap all night/day. 

People doing that job don't get enough respect, especially from the people you're doing it for.


----------



## AimeeM

leelee said:


> AimeeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louisaxx said:
> 
> 
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????
> 
> What a horrible way to direct a comment at people earning a low wage. Fags and booze? So people earning over 44k don't drink and smoke do they not?
> 
> My hubby got laid off a year ago and the only job he could get is working minimum wage, yes £5.83p and hour, 12 hour night shifts in an old peoples home, cleaning crap all night. He works his frigging arse off all week for hardly anything then there are people like you who will ALWAYS assume the worst and look down your nose at people on a low income thinking all we want is fags and booze and the like.
> 
> You want to take a look at your narrow-mind and think a little deeper at the situations people are in and realise not all of us are here through choice love.
> 
> Edit- I forgot to add, i dont smoke or drink btw.Click to expand...
> 
> Bit off topic but just wondering what you mean by 'cleaning crap all night'?Click to expand...

Basically he has to change pads that they wear and poo in and wee in. They tend to have runs all the time. Not a part of the job he enjoys but it pays the wages.

As was said above they get no respect from other staff and managers that run the place. It is a job that should be a very high wage but for some reason is not.


----------



## leelee

cherryglitter said:


> leelee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AimeeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louisaxx said:
> 
> 
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????
> 
> What a horrible way to direct a comment at people earning a low wage. Fags and booze? So people earning over 44k don't drink and smoke do they not?
> 
> My hubby got laid off a year ago and the only job he could get is working minimum wage, yes £5.83p and hour, 12 hour night shifts in an old peoples home, cleaning crap all night. He works his frigging arse off all week for hardly anything then there are people like you who will ALWAYS assume the worst and look down your nose at people on a low income thinking all we want is fags and booze and the like.
> 
> You want to take a look at your narrow-mind and think a little deeper at the situations people are in and realise not all of us are here through choice love.
> 
> Edit- I forgot to add, i dont smoke or drink btw.Click to expand...
> 
> Bit off topic but just wondering what you mean by 'cleaning crap all night'?Click to expand...
> 
> To be honest, me and OH both work in care homes, and I would call it cleaning crap all night/day.
> 
> People doing that job don't get enough respect, especially from the people you're doing it for.Click to expand...

Well it doesn't sound like you have much respect for the residents either, by the way you are phrasing what you do. Why not work somewhere else if it is that terrible?

I have worked in residential with people with disabilities and agree that sometimes the work is thankless but have you ever stopped and considered what it might be like to have different staff changing your pad or washing you every day. Not very nice I would imagine.


----------



## cherryglitter

leelee said:


> Well it doesn't sound like you have much respect for the residents either, by the way you are phrasing what you do. Why not work somewhere else if it is that terrible?
> 
> I have worked in residential with people with disabilities and agree that sometimes the work is thankless but have you ever stopped and considered what it might be like to have different staff changing your pad or washing you every day. Not very nice I would imagine.

Excuse me, I have respect for the residents I work WITH. That's just it, I work with them, but some of them think I work FOR them. Which isn't true. 

Of course i've stopped and considered what it must be like for them, i've cried about it on many an occasion! But they some people in society also seem to forget what it is like for the person changing their pad too. They make things difficult on PURPOSE. Purpose being the key word there might I add. Im not saying people who have a genuine issue or reason for things to be difficult. 

I've seen a woman who can't be bothered to walk to the toilet, when she's more than able, just poo on the floor right in front of me!?


----------



## AimeeM

It is going totally of topic now. He loves the residents and enjoys the job but gets paid rubbish for something these MP's and the like wouldn't even do for their wages. I'm off now anyway cos it's getting stupid.


----------



## cherryglitter

And with regards to working somewhere else, I enjoy my job, I like working with people. There's just a few who ruin it. Sorry but it's true! it's the same everywhere. 

Im sure there are people who don't like working with certain people. Just because their elderly doesn't mean they're not still a person in society who should carry the same respect as I do!


----------



## cherryglitter

AimeeM said:


> It is going totally of topic now. He loves the residents and enjoys the job but gets paid rubbish for something these MP's and the like wouldn't even do for their wages. I'm off now anyway cos it's getting stupid.

I agree!!! :dohh:


----------



## ouchwithNo.2

We live on the surrey/hants border, one of the most £ areas.
My OH works bloody hard long hours and takes home £25k.
He works in construction equipment which of course has taken a bashing over the last 3yrs.
I am on SMP until May (otherwise take home £16k).
We have 2 kids, oldest being 6 and for as many yrs as I can remember we only get £9.?? Per week for him.
We have never relied on that money, it is just a bonus.
Even now we still split the £ between the kids savings accounts.
We made sure we cleared our credit cards before we had another and even saved up a years downpayment on the council tax.
In my opinion we still do well (remember,we dont spend the CB). We pay our mortgage, have nice things, run two new, thirsty cars, eat well and take our 6yr old out at the weekend.
If we can manage I am sure 44k plus can? 
Maybe we just planned the whole second pregnancy too well?


----------



## leelee

cherryglitter said:


> leelee said:
> 
> 
> Well it doesn't sound like you have much respect for the residents either, by the way you are phrasing what you do. Why not work somewhere else if it is that terrible?
> 
> I have worked in residential with people with disabilities and agree that sometimes the work is thankless but have you ever stopped and considered what it might be like to have different staff changing your pad or washing you every day. Not very nice I would imagine.
> 
> Excuse me, I have respect for the residents I work WITH. That's just it, I work with them, but some of them think I work FOR them. Which isn't true.
> 
> Of course i've stopped and considered what it must be like for them, i've cried about it on many an occasion! But they some people in society also seem to forget what it is like for the person changing their pad too. They make things difficult on PURPOSE. Purpose being the key word there might I add. Im not saying people who have a genuine issue or reason for things to be difficult.
> 
> I've seen a woman who can't be bothered to walk to the toilet, when she's more than able, just poo on the floor right in front of me!?Click to expand...

I do agree that care workers aren't valued enough in society. I am from Ireland and is much better paid overe there and seen as a more professional role, with more respect. I couldn't believe how low the wages were when I came over here. It is a very important job, and takes a special type of person to be able to deal with personal care and challenging people.

Sorry - will go back on topic now!


----------



## ClaireLouise

wannabewillow said:


> ClaireLouise said:
> 
> 
> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Feel a wee bit judged byt this comment. I've lived below the breadline for more years than I've been over it. Not all 'high earners' were born with a silver spoon in their mouth! Have lived for many years on beans on toast and worrying about my electricity being cut off. Now I have to worry about being able to afford my child care and mortgage and my house is by no means lavish BTW.
> 
> I apologise for generalising, but i was just using an extreme circumstance in comparison to others using stereotypes.
> 
> I know people arent always born with silver spoons etc, but i was hoping people got the jist of what i was trying to say thats all :flower:
> 
> At the end of the day, it should be given on circumstance of course, but the Government think its too hard & expensive to do this :nope:
> 
> We should rule the bloody country!!! :happydance:Click to expand...


----------



## AP

Louisaxx said:


> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????

I'll be spending it on my child, who is classed as disabled, and nurseries wont touch her, therefore I cant work, I'm her full time carer .:thumbup: 
Dont tar everyone with the same brush, there are some scum on this earth but i doubt they are sitting on bnb right now.

ps i'd love to be working and gain some sanity!


----------



## wannabewillow

ClaireLouise said:


> wannabewillow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClaireLouise said:
> 
> 
> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Feel a wee bit judged byt this comment. I've lived below the breadline for more years than I've been over it. Not all 'high earners' were born with a silver spoon in their mouth! Have lived for many years on beans on toast and worrying about my electricity being cut off. Now I have to worry about being able to afford my child care and mortgage and my house is by no means lavish BTW.
> 
> I apologise for generalising, but i was just using an extreme circumstance in comparison to others using stereotypes.
> 
> I know people arent always born with silver spoons etc, but i was hoping people got the jist of what i was trying to say thats all :flower:
> 
> At the end of the day, it should be given on circumstance of course, but the Government think its too hard & expensive to do this :nope:
> 
> We should rule the bloody country!!! :happydance:Click to expand...
> 
> We'd do a better bloody job! :happydance: My personal circumstances are very different these days and I'm very lucky. If they introduced means testing, I'd be perfectly happy, but the Government seem to be doing it this way so they can avoid red tape and paperwork and just look at pay slips. Bit of a lazy step.Click to expand...


----------



## bambino156

I thought they weren't going to touch CB? Oh wait...another lie to get a few extra votes. I agree, I think it would be better based on total household income, but I can also see that this would be costly and probably defeating the whole objective!
Also, the way I see it, yes 44k is alot of money but those earning it usually have a bigger mortgage and bills to match, so its all relevant imo.


----------



## cherryglitter

Why would someone who earns 44k have bigger bills than someone earning say, 12k? Just curious!!


----------



## Youngling

cherryglitter said:


> Why would someone who earns 44k have bigger bills than someone earning say, 12k? Just curious!!

Bigger house and nicer cars im guessing :shrug:


----------



## Serene123

cherryglitter said:


> Why would someone who earns 44k have bigger bills than someone earning say, 12k? Just curious!!

Bigger house, more expensive to run cars, more electric appliances, bigger phone bills, bigger overdraft, loads of things I guess?

All things they could give up, but I know plenty of people on benefits who could give things up too.

Child benefit was brought in for a reason, the reason isn't necessary now, so why do SOME people get to keep it and not others? It isn't something to help income, it never was, it's just benefit for having a child to raise birth rates.


----------



## cherryglitter

Serene123 said:


> cherryglitter said:
> 
> 
> Why would someone who earns 44k have bigger bills than someone earning say, 12k? Just curious!!
> 
> Bigger house, more expensive to run cars, more electric appliances, bigger phone bills, bigger overdraft, loads of things I guess?
> 
> *All things they could give up, but I know plenty of people on benefits who could give things up too.*
> 
> Child benefit was brought in for a reason, the reason isn't necessary now, so why do SOME people get to keep it and not others? It isn't something to help income, it never was, it's just benefit for having a child to raise birth rates.Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with that, with regards to the people on benefits. 

I just think that people need to live within their means, not beyond!!


----------



## clara123

Just curious, if someone is on £12k do they get any other benefits? X


----------



## Serene123

clara123 said:


> Just curious, if someone is on £12k do they get any other benefits? X

Loads...


----------



## vhal_x

clara123 said:


> Just curious, if someone is on £12k do they get any other benefits? X

No, my OH is on less than £10k a year and he gets no benefits whatsoever.

Unless he's entitled to them and just doesn't know about it? But no the only income he receives is from his job :flower: xx​


----------



## Youngling

clara123 said:


> Just curious, if someone is on £12k do they get any other benefits? X

I only get child benefits and child tax credits and i earnt less the 12k a year, but OH earns more then this
x


----------



## cherryglitter

I just get child benefit and tax credits! :)

The same as everybody else (at the moment!) Oh and I work/worked (on mat leave!) and got around 12k a year. x


----------



## cherryglitter

Serene123 said:


> clara123 said:
> 
> 
> Just curious, if someone is on £12k do they get any other benefits? X
> 
> Loads...Click to expand...

I don't!! :shrug:


----------



## emsiee

clara123 said:


> Just curious, if someone is on £12k do they get any other benefits? X

If they are single, they will most probably get tax credits, free prescriptions, free school dinners, grant towards school uniform if their child is in school, most of their childcare fees paid for if the child is in private nursery, and some maybe get housing and council tax benefit.


----------



## Serene123

If you're single and have a baby and earn 12k you get all the benefits? Don't you? Housing benefit ect?


----------



## cherryglitter

Serene123 said:


> If you're single and have a baby and earn 12k you get all the benefits? Don't you? Housing benefit ect?

Im not single so I wouldn't know about that one. But me and OH get child benefit and tax credits. He earns about 12k a year, and I used to. 

I do know single mums though, and yes they are pretty much entitled to everything!!


----------



## emsiee

Serene123 said:


> If you're single and have a baby and earn 12k you get all the benefits? Don't you? Housing benefit ect?

More often than not, yes


----------



## cherryglitter

Oh and that's another thing that annoys me! My dad was a single father, and he didn't get half the support for me and my brother when we were younger, that single mums did, or do now.


----------



## bloodbinds

I think it's silly to get stressed about it. I am on the lowest income possible to man kind, yet if i had to, i could do without the extra £20 a week.

I don't see why someone earning over 44K would need £20? :shrug: Let alone get upset about it?

If you want, we can trade? I'll have your OH and he's income, and you can have my income and the child benefit? Lol :hugs: x


----------



## stephx

A single person on 12k wouldnt get 'loads' of benefits! Depending on their area they might get a little money towards rent and council tax but thats it! xx


----------



## Serene123

They wouldn't get full tax credits? Free prescriptions?


----------



## stephx

Depends on their income the previous year but yeah probally.. still a lot less than a 40k salary! x


----------



## clara123

Would they get a council house?


----------



## stephx

LOL no :lol: x


----------



## cherryglitter

Serene123 said:


> They wouldn't get full tax credits? Free prescriptions?

I think you only get free presciptions on working tax credits. Don't quote me on that though. I don't get full tax credits either. (Child tax credits!)


----------



## cherryglitter

clara123 said:


> Would they get a council house?

Lol no way!! So hard to get a council house!


----------



## Serene123

Really? Rich earns quite a lot and we got offered a housing association flat? :lol:


----------



## vhal_x

Serene123 said:


> Really? Rich earns quite a lot and we got offered a housing association flat? :lol:

Lucky you :), there are huuuuge waiting lists for council flats and they're not always of the nicest quality (some are downright disgusting, although I'm sure there are plenty of lovely ones out there!). But just because you are on low income doesn't qualify you for a council house, you still need to apply and go through the year long waiting lists, etc. xx​


----------



## stephx

vhal_x said:


> Serene123 said:
> 
> 
> Really? Rich earns quite a lot and we got offered a housing association flat? :lol:
> 
> Lucky you :), there are huuuuge waiting lists for council flats and they're not always of the nicest quality (some are downright disgusting, although I'm sure there are plenty of lovely ones out there!). But just because you are on low income doesn't qualify you for a council house, you still need to apply and go through the year long waiting lists, etc. xx​Click to expand...

Yep in my area there are 8000 people on the list :lol: x


----------



## Gingerspice

wannabewillow said:


> ClaireLouise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wannabewillow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClaireLouise said:
> 
> 
> Until some of the "high earners" know what its like to have toast for tea and been threatened to have your electric switched off then struggling has a very different meaning to you.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Feel a wee bit judged byt this comment. I've lived below the breadline for more years than I've been over it. Not all 'high earners' were born with a silver spoon in their mouth! Have lived for many years on beans on toast and worrying about my electricity being cut off. Now I have to worry about being able to afford my child care and mortgage and my house is by no means lavish BTW.
> 
> I apologise for generalising, but i was just using an extreme circumstance in comparison to others using stereotypes.
> 
> I know people arent always born with silver spoons etc, but i was hoping people got the jist of what i was trying to say thats all :flower:
> 
> At the end of the day, it should be given on circumstance of course, but the Government think its too hard & expensive to do this :nope:
> 
> We should rule the bloody country!!! :happydance:Click to expand...
> 
> We'd do a better bloody job! :happydance: My personal circumstances are very different these days and I'm very lucky. If they introduced means testing, I'd be perfectly happy, but the Government seem to be doing it this way so they can avoid red tape and paperwork and just look at pay slips. Bit of a lazy step.Click to expand...
> 
> Its not lazy, It (for some reason - I have no idea why) would apparently cost loads of money to bring in the system and change it to look at household income, so in order to make the savings they claim they have to allow a simplistic way to make those cuts. If they change the system it'd probably cost more than they're saving which seems counter productive for the very reason they're making the cut in the first place. This country is broke. It is in mega debt so I'm afraid people who are in the top 15% of the country earners should be able to miss £20 a week.Click to expand...


----------



## Serene123

I don't know how it all works tbh as we never accepted it.

I didn't know it was that hard though for the council, thought you got a letter then bid on what you could :lol:


----------



## clara123

Someone on £44k is in the top 15%? really?


----------



## vhal_x

Serene123 said:


> I don't know how it all works tbh as we never accepted it.
> 
> I didn't know it was that hard though for the council, thought you got a letter then bid on what you could :lol:

No, if I'm correct, I think you have to get interviewed or something and they give you a number of points, and those points determine how "highly" you qualify for a house, so if I had 10 points and you had 140, then you'd get the house, and I'd have to keep waiting. Then again, I'm not entirely sure as I've not been through the system myself xx​


----------



## gills8752

clara123 said:


> Someone on £44k is in the top 15%? really?

No lol. Top 15% is people earning a hell of a lot more than that. Up here around 40% of the people earn more than 40k. the top 15 would be around over a 150k xxx


----------



## Celesse

Just gone to the entitledto calculator. If I dumped OH and went down to £12k a year I would get CB, WTC and CTC. No housing or council tax benefit.


----------



## Gingerspice

Yep, the top 15% (and argubly in fact more like 10%) those who are higher rate tax payers. (for individiual income, not household). It probably surprises people, and that is based on older stats so not sure if that's true following the economic situation we're currently in.


----------



## Rhiannon

i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!


----------



## stephx

rhiannon said:


> i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!

taking away £20 a week isnt exactly punishing high earners is it? :dohh:


----------



## discoclare

rhiannon said:


> i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!

i disagree i'm afraid. i don't think high earners should be "entitled" to benefits. i would rather my tax went into healthcare and our state schools rather than giving 80 quid back to me (though it was a nice little bonus!). just my opinion!


----------



## Rhiannon

stephx said:


> rhiannon said:
> 
> 
> i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!
> 
> taking away £20 a week isnt exactly punishing high earners is it? :dohh:Click to expand...

its punishing an element of 'tax back' in my opinion. just cos your earning 45k a year doesnt mean you have 2k a month spare to spend on as you please lol.


----------



## vhal_x

discoclare said:


> rhiannon said:
> 
> 
> i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!
> 
> i disagree i'm afraid. i don't think high earners should be "entitled" to benefits. i would rather my tax went into healthcare and our state schools rather than giving 80 quid back to me (though it was a nice little bonus!). just my opinion!Click to expand...

:thumbup: I agree, if you earn a high enough income to not desperately need to be on benefits then it's better it goes to the people who _do_ actually need it. 

If I ever get above the £44k threshold I will be more than happy to give up the £20 a week as there are many people who need it more than I will xx​


----------



## Rhiannon

discoclare said:


> rhiannon said:
> 
> 
> i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!
> 
> i disagree i'm afraid. i don't think high earners should be "entitled" to benefits. i would rather my tax went into healthcare and our state schools rather than giving 80 quid back to me (though it was a nice little bonus!). just my opinion!Click to expand...

i think high earners should be entitled to the same as anyone else. i hate the way this country tries to make everyone the same. why should someone who only earns 12k a year get topped up so that they have the same kinda money as someone who earns 18k. sickens me!!!


----------



## stephx

rhiannon said:


> discoclare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhiannon said:
> 
> 
> i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!
> 
> i disagree i'm afraid. i don't think high earners should be "entitled" to benefits. i would rather my tax went into healthcare and our state schools rather than giving 80 quid back to me (though it was a nice little bonus!). just my opinion!Click to expand...
> 
> i think high earners should be entitled to the same as anyone else. i hate the way this country tries to make everyone the same. why should someone who only earns 12k a year get topped up so that they have the same kinda money as someone who earns 18k. sickens me!!!Click to expand...

Its not trying to make everyone the same! You cant seriously think that someone on 45k needs £20 pw more than someone on 12k??


----------



## Gingerspice

because its nearly impossible to live on £12,000 salary, so in order to try to stop people living in poverty (relative not absolute) then they need extra top up. If people who earn more than £44,000 are moaning how the extra £20 a week is going to cripple them, then I think people trying to live on £12,000 a year must struggle bigtime. Yes it is relative, but if you're earning (relatively a lot - see my stat post of being in top percentiles) then you don't have to spend all that money ont he huge outgoings, just as someone on a lower income doesn't (or can't)
My sister is a big earner (as in top 10% of country and I've never known anyone as frugal and tight as she is. She was offered a massive mortgage (talking millions) but turned it down knowing that might be nice to own a massive house but there are essentials and luxuries and she didn't want to risk not having money should interest raise, or economy crumble. People don't have to own houses - plenty of people can't because they don't earn enough, so if the £20 a week is going to cripple you, join those that already are stuck and rent. Buying is a luxury now-a-days and people should really be grateful for anything they own.


----------



## stephx

Gingerspice said:


> because its nearly impossible to live on £12,000 salary, so in order to try to stop people living in poverty (relative not absolute) then they need extra top up. If people who earn more than £44,000 are moaning how the extra £20 a week is going to cripple them, then I think people trying to live on £12,000 a year must struggle bigtime. Yes it is relative, but if you're earning (relatively a lot - see my stat post of being in top percentiles) then you don't have to spend all that money ont he huge outgoings, just as someone on a lower income doesn't (or can't)
> My sister is a big earner (as in top 10% of country and I've never known anyone as frugal and tight as she is. She was offered a massive mortgage (talking millions) but turned it down knowing that might be nice to own a massive house but there are essentials and luxuries and she didn't want to risk not having money should interest raise, or economy crumble. People don't have to own houses - plenty of people can't because they don't earn enough, so if the £20 a week is going to cripple you, join those that already are stuck and rent. Buying is a luxury now-a-days and people should really be grateful for anything they own.

:thumbup:


----------



## bloodbinds

Agree with a lot of you ladies!

If you are earning more than 44K and losing £20 a week is going to effect you, then you need to sort out your priorities. People live to their means, so if £20 does effect you, then i bet it's because you have huge TVs and big cars to pay for and a huge house with lots of bills. And Sky+ Lol. If you cut back on the luxuries you'd hae more spare cash.
I have very little outgoings because i don't have a lot, because i can't afford it :shrug: And i earn under 12K and could still go without the £20 a week if i had to, because i would just cancel my internet or stop eating (lol).


----------



## AP

bloodbinds said:


> Agree with a lot of you ladies!
> 
> If you are earning more than 44K and losing £20 a week is going to effect you, then you need to sort out your priorities. People live to their means, so if £20 does effect you, then i bet it's because you have huge TVs and big cars to pay for and a huge house with lots of bills. And Sky+ Lol. If you cut back on the luxuries you'd hae more spare cash.
> I have very little outgoings because i don't have a lot, because i can't afford it :shrug: And i earn under 12K and could still go without the £20 a week if i had to, because i would just cancel my internet or stop eating (lol).

I've thought about it all day and I have come to the same conclusion. I doubt, if these high earners didnt have the above such things, that they'd be complaining.
Im the same, they can take my bloody £20 a week if they want, if I can live without it on our incomes then 44k + should find it pee easy!


----------



## ellie

I never ever got a single benefit in my life no matter what I earned :shrug: so I dont know too much about the whole thing .... it seems really complicated to me :haha:

we do get Cb now though and TBH it was a godsend when I was on mat leave as it just helped so much with food and bills. we dont get any kind of tax credits though. When we start having to pay for childcare next week :cry: I think we will appreciate it even more. I think that between us we'll probably be over the threshold but my job is only for the next 2 years. Isnt it not coming in for another couple of years anyway?

I kind of always thought benefits were intended to go to those who truly need financial help. In theory I guess you could say that people who earn that much don't truly 'need' it. I was delighted to find out I could get it though. And I don't have loads of 'luxuries' ... a small car, no sky or anything like that, a modest kind of house. I shop in asda and lidl lol. 

it does feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth to those who have worked really hard and have managed to get higher paid jobs (and I am aware that a LOT of people work really really bloody hard and get paid peanuts!) 
... onthe other hand, if I was given the choice, I might prefer my £20 a week to go somewhere it was needed more (which is kind of hte point of benefits)

Difficult one! The govt will just do what they like anyway :shrug:


----------



## Louisaxx

oh for goodness sake, i wish people would read my posts properly before they comment on them, I said many people not all, anyway I'm done with this thread now so feel free to misquote me and slag off my opinion to your hearts content but please read what I've put before you do!!!!


----------



## vhal_x

ellie said:


> I never ever got a single benefit in my life no matter what I earned :shrug: so I dont know too much about the whole thing .... it seems really complicated to me :haha:
> 
> we do get Cb now though and TBH it was a godsend when I was on mat leave as it just helped so much with food and bills. we dont get any kind of tax credits though. When we start having to pay for childcare next week :cry: I think we will appreciate it even more. * I think that between us we'll probably be over the threshold but my job is only for the next 2 years. Isnt it not coming in for another couple of years anyway?*
> 
> I kind of always thought benefits were intended to go to those who truly need financial help. In theory I guess you could say that people who earn that much don't truly 'need' it. I was delighted to find out I could get it though.
> 
> it does feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth to those who have worked really hard and have managed to get higher paid jobs ... onthe other hand, if I was given the choice, I might prefer my £20 a week to go somewhere it was needed more (which is kind of hte point of benefits)
> 
> Difficult one! The govt will just do what they like anyway :shrug:

It won't affect you if you're only over the threshold with both wages. It's if one partner alone is over the threshold that it will affect you. 

I buy nothing for myself ATM, all my income is IS unfortunately, but it has all went on my LO and getting his stuff ready (although I have spent a little on his and OH's Christmas :) ) but I really don't see why £20 less a week will be enough to financially cripple someone who is above the threshold anyway. 

They could quite easily give up something , such as Sky+HD, or get a cheaper car or whatever, whereas, if the £20 a week was removed from everyone, the lowest of the low-income people would be f*cked. That £20 may mean the difference between dinner and no-dinner.

I am definitely on low income, considering I am currently unemployed :dohh:, so I don't buy anything for myself (other than food, etc) and the rest of my money is saved or spent on LO.

Obviously, everyone can make cutbacks to make them have the most disposable income possible, and if everyone did this, it would make the world a better place as less people would be complaining about losing out on £20 a week because they can no longer afford things.

I'm going off on a tangent here so I'm gonna stop but iykwim, £20 a week is a big difference to someone on low income compared to high income earners xx

ETA: Sorry I appear to have quoted someone I didn't mean to, whoops :) xx

ETA, again: Yes I did, suddenly thought I'd quoted the wrong person, re-read it, and I have in fact quoted the correct person :dohh: xx​


----------



## Jolinar

Oh lord it's turning into another "poor off". People need to stop the assumptions no matter what they (others) earn or their circumstances are. I'm out.


----------



## Gingerspice

Thought this might be of interest to everybody:

Taken from HMRC website:

Percentile point Income (07-08)
Bottom 1% £5,600
5% £6,870
10% £8,240
25% £11,800
Median (50%) £18,500
75% £29,500
Top 10% (90 %) £44,900
95 % £61,500
Top 1% £149,000

As I said, those earning more than £44,000 are in fact on the border / in the top 10% of earners.
I haven't looked for more recent data, so it may well be different now, but gives an idea that you really are in the minority and privileged in terms of your salary


----------



## vhal_x

Gingerspice said:


> Thought this might be of interest to everybody:
> 
> Taken from HMRC website:
> 
> Percentile point Income (07-08)
> Bottom 1% £5,600
> 5% £6,870
> 10% £8,240
> 25% £11,800
> Median (50%) £18,500
> 75% £29,500
> Top 10% (90 %) £44,900
> 95 % £61,500
> Top 1% £149,000
> 
> As I said, those earning more than £44,000 are in fact on the border / in the top 10% of earners.
> I haven't looked for more recent data, so it may well be different now, but gives an idea that you really are in the minority and privileged in terms of your salary

Haha, my OH is in the bottom 10% of earners, I think £8,240 is actually the exact amount he earns a year :blush: xx​


----------



## ellie27

I am happy its to be scrapped.

I think £20 is nothing to someone over like £30,000 no matter how big your mortgage/bills etc are


----------



## Rhiannon

i wasnt saying people who earn £44k plus need £20 a week, but why should it be taken off them. why should they pay for someone else to have £20 a week when they dont get it themselves.

im not saying poor people shouldnt have some money to help but people who dont have much should learn to stop wasting also.


----------



## Missy86

If my Oh had 44 thousand a year I would gladly give up my Child benifit

Im not rich but class myself as middle class, what are the definitions


----------



## ellie

not really sure, my family's def working class though (if classes still exist lol)

Bottom line, it was great while it lasted, but with things the way they are its better for teh people who really do need it to have it. It would be bad if it was being scrapped for everyone, it really makes a massive difference if you are earning less and in most cases I bet it makes the difference for the children it was intended to help.m which is what we all want i'm sure.


----------



## Missy86

ellie said:


> not really sure, my family's def working class though (if classes still exist lol)
> 
> Bottom line, it was great while it lasted, but with things the way they are its better for teh people who really do need it to have it. It would be bad if it was being scrapped for everyone, it really makes a massive difference if you are earning less and in most cases I bet it makes the difference for the children it was intended to help.m which is what we all want i'm sure.

Totally agree


----------



## FBbaby

I commented on the other thread and I am shocked by the comments here. I really would like to know how much tax credits those whose household earning is £12K receive, because i think it is likely to paint another picture. 

As I said on the other thread, I earn £40K, have two children and get no maintenance from their dad. I am entitled to no working tax credits... well I am much worse off than I was 3 years ago when my salary was lower and I was entitled to working tax credits... 

When I have paid all my bills, childcare, mortgage, insurances, petrol to get to work 45 minutes away, etc..., I have very little disposable income left. When I read that £20 a week wouldn't make a difference to me, I am wondering if we are living in the same world, because £85 certainly makes a difference at the end of the month. I have to be constantly careful at what I buy and balance my books. I have to tell my kids that they might have to wait to get things, I go to the hairdresser only every 4 months, don't benefit from any luxuries. I am contantly worried that I might be in the red at the end of the month, even though I have no credit card debts at all. 

I studied hard, then worked hard, only took a few months off after the birth of my children and always worked full-time. It is hard not to become bitter when the more dedicated you are to your career, taking on more and more stress, comes with fewer and fewer rewards and listen to people telling you that you should just consider yourself grateful.


----------



## bluebaby

FBbaby said:


> I commented on the other thread and I am shocked by the comments here. I really would like to know who much tax credits those whose household earning is £12K, because i think it is likely to paint another picture.
> 
> As I said on the other thread, I earn £40K, have two children and get no maintenance from their dad. I am entitled to no working tax credits... well I am much worse off than I was 3 years ago when my salary was lower and I was entitled to working tax credits...
> 
> When I have paid all my bills, childcare, mortgage, insurances, petrol to get to work 45 minutes away, etc..., I have very little disposable income left. When I read that £20 a week wouldn't make a difference to me, I am wondering if we are living in the same world, because £85 certainly makes a difference at the end of the month. I have to be constantly careful at what I buy and balance my books. I have to tell my kids that they might have to wait to get things, I go to the hairdresser only every 4 months, don't benefit from any luxuries. I am contantly worried that I might be in the red at the end of the month, even though I have no credit card debts at all.
> 
> I studied hard, then worked hard, only took a few months off after the birth of my children and always worked full-time. It is hard not to become bitter when the more dedicated you are to your career, taking on more and more stress, comes with fewer and fewer rewards and listen to people telling you that you should just consider yourself grateful.

I have to agree with you. Between my hubby and I we earn about £50,000 but we have the outgoings to match. Our child benefit comes in so handy as it is how I buy all of Madelyn's things she needs for the month. We would struggle without it as all our money is accounted for. I'm also so fed up that people always say that if you earn a bit of money then you don't deserve any benefits, what alot of people would like is for us to put all of our wages into the economy by way of taxes and national insurance and get absolutely nothing in return.


----------



## bloodbinds

I don't understand how people on 40K+ struggle to get everything paid and yet i'm on 19Kish (including ALL benefits) and i can still afford to put £50 into Bellas saving account every month :shrug:


----------



## indy and lara

I have been posting on the thread in GC about this. OH earns above the threshold and I am a SAHM so we will get no CB. We will of course continue to pay 40% on part of OH's salary. However, families where both parents work and both earn £40K each WILL get CB. Please tell me how that is fair? If £44k is the cut off then it is the cut off regardless if this is single or joint household income.

Of course we will not starve when we no longer get CB but I do stilll use it for things for Emma (classes, etc). At the moment people like us continue to pay out more and more in tax and get less and less in return. So yes, I am really peeved about the whole situation. Like everyone else we have bills, mortgage etc to pay out. We worked very hard to get to where we are and made a lot of sacrifices on the way. Yes we all work hard for our salary, regardless of what we earn but sometimes when you only pay into the system and get very little out then you get a bit fed up being told to be grateful.


----------



## indy and lara

bluebaby said:


> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> I commented on the other thread and I am shocked by the comments here. I really would like to know who much tax credits those whose household earning is £12K, because i think it is likely to paint another picture.
> 
> As I said on the other thread, I earn £40K, have two children and get no maintenance from their dad. I am entitled to no working tax credits... well I am much worse off than I was 3 years ago when my salary was lower and I was entitled to working tax credits...
> 
> When I have paid all my bills, childcare, mortgage, insurances, petrol to get to work 45 minutes away, etc..., I have very little disposable income left. When I read that £20 a week wouldn't make a difference to me, I am wondering if we are living in the same world, because £85 certainly makes a difference at the end of the month. I have to be constantly careful at what I buy and balance my books. I have to tell my kids that they might have to wait to get things, I go to the hairdresser only every 4 months, don't benefit from any luxuries. I am contantly worried that I might be in the red at the end of the month, even though I have no credit card debts at all.
> 
> I studied hard, then worked hard, only took a few months off after the birth of my children and always worked full-time. It is hard not to become bitter when the more dedicated you are to your career, taking on more and more stress, comes with fewer and fewer rewards and listen to people telling you that you should just consider yourself grateful.
> 
> I have to agree with you. Between my hubby and I we earn about £50,000 but we have the outgoings to match. Our child benefit comes in so handy as it is how I buy all of Madelyn's things she needs for the month. We would struggle without it as all our money is accounted for. I'm also so fed up that people always say that if you earn a bit of money then you don't deserve any benefits, what alot of people would like is for us to put all of our wages into the economy by way of taxes and national insurance and get absolutely nothing in return.Click to expand...

I am curious as to how you get Housing Benefit also? How much is this and what criteria do you have to meet?


----------



## FBbaby

Indeed bluebaby. I 'only' live in a basic three bedroom semi in an average surburbain street, 'only' not because I am not grateful for it, but because it certainly is not the accommodation of the top 10% earners.... I don't drive lexus car or similar like the top 10% earners, I drive a vokswagen Touran that is a few years old, again, not bad, but certainly not luxurious. I don't shop at M&S, but at Tesco most of the time, and at times at Lidl. Holidays are at my parents' house in the South of France, not exotic places like the top 10% earners... I buy my and my kids clothes on sales only, and we certainly don't do designer stuff, and I could go on....

I guess I am getting tired of being considered like a lucky person who can enjoy luxuries and not have to deal with the stress of money because of my salary...


----------



## Embovstar

I'm in the fortunate position that my Husband does have a very good job and does have a very good income and so I have not needed to use the CB that I have received for anything other than to save it for Isaac.

However, I'm still annoyed!

From the date that it stops, I'll just have to put the equivalent into his account so that he doesn't miss out. 

I'm sorry to read how it will effect everyone :hugs:

Nicola xx


----------



## babyblog

I don't understand why people need to try to be the most hard done by!

Everyone lives within their means, whether you earn your wage by working or receive benefit money.Why do those who earn under the threshold feel it is their place to suggest that other families who earn more money don't need the extra £20 per week? How do you that peron's situation? 

The more you earn the bigger your outgoings.You lose a far higher percentage of your wages to tax ,NI and pension than someone who earns say 12k.Your rent/mortgage is generally gona be higher as you'll probably live in a more affluent area-as that is probably where the highest paying jobs are, mortgages are generally higher than rent as you pay so much interest.If your house is bigger then your bills will be bigger etc, so i is all relative.


----------



## mandylou

no offence but my OH is on 20k and we have no benefits what so ever. (youre not entitled to anything on your first child here) and i dont work, we manage. 44k is a far off dream to us.


----------



## FBbaby

bloodbinds said:


> I don't understand how people on 40K+ struggle to get everything paid and yet i'm on 19Kish (including ALL benefits) and i can still afford to put £50 into Bellas saving account every month :shrug:

How much do you pay for rent/mortgage? Do you pay house, car, life insurance, car payments, car repair, home repairs? Do you pay childcare, kids activities, party presents, school dinners, school trips (argggg, just had to fork out £200 for my eldest end of year trip....)?


----------



## bluebaby

FBbaby said:


> Indeed bluebaby. I 'only' live in a basic three bedroom semi in an average surburbain street, 'only' not because I am not grateful for it, but because it certainly is not the accommodation of the top 10% earners.... I don't drive an lexus car or similar like the top 10% earners, I drive a vokswagen Turan that is a few years old, again, not bad, but certainly not luxurious. I don't shop at M&S, but at Tesco most of the time, and at times at Lidl. Holidays are at my parents' house in the South of France, not exotic places like the top 10% earners... I buy my and my kids clothes on sales only, and we certainly don't do designer stuff, and I could go on....
> 
> I guess I am getting tired of being considered like a lucky person who can enjoy luxuries and not have to deal with the stress of money because of my salary...

Yeah we are the same, we live in a 2 bed semi (our mortgage is alot though because of the area), I drive an 02 punto and we don't go on holiday. Oh I wish I could win the lottery :haha:


----------



## clara123

Not getting £20 a week will not financially cripple me but I will miss it- every little helps and all that. Between us we pay over £3k a month tax and so £20 a week back is very small in comparison.

I appreciate that we are lucky to earn as much as we do but we still struggle. And the comment about it being a luxury to buy a house and it being cheaper to rent- it's just as expensive to rent as it is to pay a mortgage in my area. And if no one bought houses it just wouldn't work as there wouldn't be enough houses to rent.

I just think that taking into account the amount of tax we pay we don't see much of it back and just get penalised more and more for working hard to provide for your family.


----------



## ellie27

I can make £20 go a long, long way and cover loads of baby expenses but do you really need it???? If you are on £30/£40,000 how can you miss £80 a month??


----------



## mandylou

clara123 said:


> Not getting £20 a week will not financially cripple me but I will miss it-


we live on £30 a week lol :haha:


----------



## bluebaby

bloodbinds said:


> I don't understand how people on 40K+ struggle to get everything paid and yet i'm on 19Kish (including ALL benefits) and i can still afford to put £50 into Bellas saving account every month :shrug:

I don't struggle to get everything paid but our money is accounted for. We have a large mortgage because of the area we live in and we pay out £600 a month in petrol for my hubby to get to work and because we both went through further education we have student loans. So just because someone may think £40k is alot its not when you put someone's circumstances alongside it. I could live without the child benefit if i had too but i don't feel like i should have to.


----------



## bluebaby

indy and lara said:


> bluebaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> I commented on the other thread and I am shocked by the comments here. I really would like to know who much tax credits those whose household earning is £12K, because i think it is likely to paint another picture.
> 
> As I said on the other thread, I earn £40K, have two children and get no maintenance from their dad. I am entitled to no working tax credits... well I am much worse off than I was 3 years ago when my salary was lower and I was entitled to working tax credits...
> 
> When I have paid all my bills, childcare, mortgage, insurances, petrol to get to work 45 minutes away, etc..., I have very little disposable income left. When I read that £20 a week wouldn't make a difference to me, I am wondering if we are living in the same world, because £85 certainly makes a difference at the end of the month. I have to be constantly careful at what I buy and balance my books. I have to tell my kids that they might have to wait to get things, I go to the hairdresser only every 4 months, don't benefit from any luxuries. I am contantly worried that I might be in the red at the end of the month, even though I have no credit card debts at all.
> 
> I studied hard, then worked hard, only took a few months off after the birth of my children and always worked full-time. It is hard not to become bitter when the more dedicated you are to your career, taking on more and more stress, comes with fewer and fewer rewards and listen to people telling you that you should just consider yourself grateful.
> 
> I have to agree with you. Between my hubby and I we earn about £50,000 but we have the outgoings to match. Our child benefit comes in so handy as it is how I buy all of Madelyn's things she needs for the month. We would struggle without it as all our money is accounted for. I'm also so fed up that people always say that if you earn a bit of money then you don't deserve any benefits, what alot of people would like is for us to put all of our wages into the economy by way of taxes and national insurance and get absolutely nothing in return.Click to expand...
> 
> I am curious as to how you get Housing Benefit also? How much is this and what criteria do you have to meet?Click to expand...

I don't know if this was for me but i don't get housing benefit


----------



## Missy86

If they made it 55 thousand instead off 44 people would still complain, you cant win


----------



## FBbaby

bluebaby said:


> I could live without the child benefit if i had too but i don't feel like i should have to.

I guess this is how I feel, yes I could do without, or more like my kids could do without, it is exactly the cost of their swimming lessons, but whY should they have to stop an activity that is good for them just because silly mummy is earning too much???


----------



## indy and lara

bluebaby said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluebaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> I commented on the other thread and I am shocked by the comments here. I really would like to know who much tax credits those whose household earning is £12K, because i think it is likely to paint another picture.
> 
> As I said on the other thread, I earn £40K, have two children and get no maintenance from their dad. I am entitled to no working tax credits... well I am much worse off than I was 3 years ago when my salary was lower and I was entitled to working tax credits...
> 
> When I have paid all my bills, childcare, mortgage, insurances, petrol to get to work 45 minutes away, etc..., I have very little disposable income left. When I read that £20 a week wouldn't make a difference to me, I am wondering if we are living in the same world, because £85 certainly makes a difference at the end of the month. I have to be constantly careful at what I buy and balance my books. I have to tell my kids that they might have to wait to get things, I go to the hairdresser only every 4 months, don't benefit from any luxuries. I am contantly worried that I might be in the red at the end of the month, even though I have no credit card debts at all.
> 
> I studied hard, then worked hard, only took a few months off after the birth of my children and always worked full-time. It is hard not to become bitter when the more dedicated you are to your career, taking on more and more stress, comes with fewer and fewer rewards and listen to people telling you that you should just consider yourself grateful.
> 
> I have to agree with you. Between my hubby and I we earn about £50,000 but we have the outgoings to match. Our child benefit comes in so handy as it is how I buy all of Madelyn's things she needs for the month. We would struggle without it as all our money is accounted for. I'm also so fed up that people always say that if you earn a bit of money then you don't deserve any benefits, what alot of people would like is for us to put all of our wages into the economy by way of taxes and national insurance and get absolutely nothing in return.Click to expand...
> 
> I am curious as to how you get Housing Benefit also? How much is this and what criteria do you have to meet?Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know if this was for me but i don't get housing benefitClick to expand...

Sorry it wasn't- :dohh: I was wondering in general how you get HB, I wasn't aiming it at anyone!!!! I am not even sure how I quoted as I didn't mean too!:flower:


----------



## AP

indy and lara you apply at chesser house ;) i think you have to be under a certain amount of earnings


----------



## Gingerspice

FBbaby said:


> Indeed bluebaby. I 'only' live in a basic three bedroom semi in an average surburbain street, 'only' not because I am not grateful for it, but because it certainly is not the accommodation of the top 10% earners.... I don't drive lexus car or similar like the top 10% earners, I drive a vokswagen Touran that is a few years old, again, not bad, but certainly not luxurious. I don't shop at M&S, but at Tesco most of the time, and at times at Lidl. Holidays are at my parents' house in the South of France, not exotic places like the top 10% earners... I buy my and my kids clothes on sales only, and we certainly don't do designer stuff, and I could go on....
> 
> I guess I am getting tired of being considered like a lucky person who can enjoy luxuries and not have to deal with the stress of money because of my salary...

But you are in the top 10% if you earn over that amount, so maybe people's perception of living expectations just need to be adjusted. 

If you're 'only' in a three bed semi, and 'only' driving a touran and If you are struggling to live the life you think a top 10% earner should have, then just think how those that do earn less must be living. If you can 'only' get the 'basics' yourself, then they must be in an even worse position earning less than those in the top 10%.

We'll never buy a house because I know our income would not sustain it. The houses round here for a basic 2 up 2 down house would be a monthly payout of £1500 a month mortgage. We can rent for £800 a month, so thats what we do. We live within our means and if CB was scrapped for us we would accept it and move on. I now we're one of the wealthier ones around as we do earn more than average, so must be able to survive. 

I think the main reason though people are annoyed, which I can understand, is not that it is being scrapped for those in the top 10%, but because of the unfairness there seems to be with the proposed plans of not looking at the household income. Maybe I should cap our earnings, ask for a pay cut or go part-time then we'd get the £20 a month back! lol.


----------



## bluebaby

indy and lara said:


> bluebaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluebaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> I commented on the other thread and I am shocked by the comments here. I really would like to know who much tax credits those whose household earning is £12K, because i think it is likely to paint another picture.
> 
> As I said on the other thread, I earn £40K, have two children and get no maintenance from their dad. I am entitled to no working tax credits... well I am much worse off than I was 3 years ago when my salary was lower and I was entitled to working tax credits...
> 
> When I have paid all my bills, childcare, mortgage, insurances, petrol to get to work 45 minutes away, etc..., I have very little disposable income left. When I read that £20 a week wouldn't make a difference to me, I am wondering if we are living in the same world, because £85 certainly makes a difference at the end of the month. I have to be constantly careful at what I buy and balance my books. I have to tell my kids that they might have to wait to get things, I go to the hairdresser only every 4 months, don't benefit from any luxuries. I am contantly worried that I might be in the red at the end of the month, even though I have no credit card debts at all.
> 
> I studied hard, then worked hard, only took a few months off after the birth of my children and always worked full-time. It is hard not to become bitter when the more dedicated you are to your career, taking on more and more stress, comes with fewer and fewer rewards and listen to people telling you that you should just consider yourself grateful.
> 
> I have to agree with you. Between my hubby and I we earn about £50,000 but we have the outgoings to match. Our child benefit comes in so handy as it is how I buy all of Madelyn's things she needs for the month. We would struggle without it as all our money is accounted for. I'm also so fed up that people always say that if you earn a bit of money then you don't deserve any benefits, what alot of people would like is for us to put all of our wages into the economy by way of taxes and national insurance and get absolutely nothing in return.Click to expand...
> 
> I am curious as to how you get Housing Benefit also? How much is this and what criteria do you have to meet?Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know if this was for me but i don't get housing benefitClick to expand...
> 
> Sorry it wasn't- :dohh: I was wondering in general how you get HB, I wasn't aiming it at anyone!!!! I am not even sure how I quoted as I didn't mean too!:flower:Click to expand...

:haha: no problem. I think you have to be claiming benefits or be on a low income to claim housing benefit but i'm not sure as i've not had any dealings with it. My friend is in the process of claiming housing benefit as she has been made redundant and she has been waiting for months for a decision.


----------



## bloodbinds

FBbaby said:


> bloodbinds said:
> 
> 
> I don't understand how people on 40K+ struggle to get everything paid and yet i'm on 19Kish (including ALL benefits) and i can still afford to put £50 into Bellas saving account every month :shrug:
> 
> How much do you pay for rent/mortgage? Do you pay house, car, life insurance, car payments, car repair, home repairs? Do you pay childcare, kids activities, party presents, school dinners, school trips (argggg, just had to fork out £200 for my eldest end of year trip....)?Click to expand...


My bills are really none of your business :shrug:

But yes, i do pay rent, heating, water, gas, car ins, life ins, alsorts of car repairs (my poor car is falling apart - i live with the check engine light on! Lol Oops) And yes childcare has to be paid for too (but her food is included in the amount) i'm currently moving into a new house, and have just spent a load of money on decorating it, and paying fo furniture since i'm moving from a fully furnished place to a none furnished.
Last month it was my mums wedding, which i had to buy a present for and a dress for. It was my sisters, step dads, grans and best friends birthday which i had to buy presents for and next month it's bellas birthday (1 already, how did that happen?!) my nephews birthday, my nans birthday and my birthday! Lol.

So i don't think you can sit there and say i have no outgoings. I pay for all that stuff, along with food, petrol, nappies etc and i'm still coping :shrug:

I just dont go out, or have any luxuries, or holidays. I don't go to the hairdressers (which might be one of the reasons i dont have a boyfriend...hmmm) or have any fun at all! Lol. Cuz i can't afford it. Looking forward to the day that i'm earning 44K and might be able to afford to have a life! Lol.


----------



## NG09

I have no intention of discussing my income or indeed my husbands on an internet forum, but loosing £20 per week when you have a salary of £44k+ it is a drop in the ocean, I guarentee it won't even be missed. Also to the OP, if I desperately needed the extra £20 and my husband couldn't spare it from his salary I would be asking questions!


----------



## indy and lara

sb22 said:


> indy and lara you apply at chesser house ;) i think you have to be under a certain amount of earnings

Have got a friend who desperately needs to get out of an abusive relationship but there seems to be no way for her to get out- she has 2 kids and a joint mortgage. When I was reading this thread it got me thinking if this was a way she would be able to get rehoused as she is far down the council waiting list and won't go to the police/ report him. Chesser House- seeing her tomorrow so will have this discussion with her again. Have tried before but here's hoping. Ta Sandi!


----------



## clara123

How can you 'guarantee' it won't be missed? And when did I say he can't spare me the money?? Like I said if you read my posts I can live without the money- just pointing out the way they are penalising some and not others is not fair. And why shouldn't I miss £130 a month? Other people miss so why can't I? Yes we earn more but we work hard (not saying other people don't!) and that money does make a difference to me!


----------



## babybaillie

I agree with what they have done. If anyone in ur household earns this amount u really dont need cb. I think it should be reduced further for families on 30 grand a year or maybe even less.


----------



## FBbaby

bloodbinds said:


> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bloodbinds said:
> 
> 
> I don't understand how people on 40K+ struggle to get everything paid and yet i'm on 19Kish (including ALL benefits) and i can still afford to put £50 into Bellas saving account every month :shrug:
> 
> How much do you pay for rent/mortgage? Do you pay house, car, life insurance, car payments, car repair, home repairs? Do you pay childcare, kids activities, party presents, school dinners, school trips (argggg, just had to fork out £200 for my eldest end of year trip....)?Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bills are really none of your business :shrug:
> 
> But yes, i do pay rent, heating, water, gas, car ins, life ins, alsorts of car repairs (my poor car is falling apart - i live with the check engine light on! Lol Oops) And yes childcare has to be paid for too (but her food is included in the amount) i'm currently moving into a new house, and have just spent a load of money on decorating it, and paying fo furniture since i'm moving from a fully furnished place to a none furnished.
> Last month it was my mums wedding, which i had to buy a present for and a dress for. It was my sisters, step dads, grans and best friends birthday which i had to buy presents for and next month it's bellas birthday (1 already, how did that happen?!) my nephews birthday, my nans birthday and my birthday! Lol.
> 
> So i don't think you can sit there and say i have no outgoings. I pay for all that stuff, along with food, petrol, nappies etc and i'm still coping :shrug:
> 
> I just dont go out, or have any luxuries, or holidays. I don't go to the hairdressers (which might be one of the reasons i dont have a boyfriend...hmmm) or have any fun at all! Lol. Cuz i can't afford it. Looking forward to the day that i'm earning 44K and might be able to afford to have a life! Lol.Click to expand...

I responded to the other discussion, but surely people should have a choice of either not taking on higher education or trying to rise up the ladder, or study for long hours, take out huge student loans, work long hours under stressful conditions, and pay huge taxes and still be able to see some benefits for it all. 

To me, saying that higher earners should do without CB because of their high salary is the equivalent of telling those working part-time that they should start working extra hours without pay? Surely a couple of extra hours a week won't make a difference to you if you only work 20 hours (not you specifically, talking in general terms)...


----------



## NG09

clara123 said:


> How can you 'guarantee' it won't be missed? And when did I say he can't spare me the money?? Like I said if you read my posts I can live without the money- just pointing out the way they are penalising some and not others is not fair. And why shouldn't I miss £130 a month? Other people miss so why can't I? Yes we earn more but we work hard (not saying other people don't!) and that money does make a difference to me!

Like I said I'm not going to discuss my income but I can't see how it would be missed.

Funny bacause the higher my husbands salary has gone the less he seems to work. I'm sure it's harder for people knocking their pan in day in day out for peanuts. JMO.


----------



## FBbaby

Gingerspice said:


> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> Indeed bluebaby. I 'only' live in a basic three bedroom semi in an average surburbain street, 'only' not because I am not grateful for it, but because it certainly is not the accommodation of the top 10% earners.... I don't drive lexus car or similar like the top 10% earners, I drive a vokswagen Touran that is a few years old, again, not bad, but certainly not luxurious. I don't shop at M&S, but at Tesco most of the time, and at times at Lidl. Holidays are at my parents' house in the South of France, not exotic places like the top 10% earners... I buy my and my kids clothes on sales only, and we certainly don't do designer stuff, and I could go on....
> 
> I guess I am getting tired of being considered like a lucky person who can enjoy luxuries and not have to deal with the stress of money because of my salary...
> 
> But you are in the top 10% if you earn over that amount, so maybe people's perception of living expectations just need to be adjusted.
> 
> If you're 'only' in a three bed semi, and 'only' driving a touran and If you are struggling to live the life you think a top 10% earner should have, then just think how those that do earn less must be living. If you can 'only' get the 'basics' yourself, then they must be in an even worse position earning less than those in the top 10%.
> 
> We'll never buy a house because I know our income would not sustain it. The houses round here for a basic 2 up 2 down house would be a monthly payout of £1500 a month mortgage. We can rent for £800 a month, so thats what we do. We live within our means and if CB was scrapped for us we would accept it and move on. I now we're one of the wealthier ones around as we do earn more than average, so must be able to survive.
> 
> I think the main reason though people are annoyed, which I can understand, is not that it is being scrapped for those in the top 10%, but because of the unfairness there seems to be with the proposed plans of not looking at the household income. Maybe I should cap our earnings, ask for a pay cut or go part-time then we'd get the £20 a month back! lol.Click to expand...

But that's the point, I know many families who earn less than me yet have a similar lifestyle because of all the tax credits they are entitled to. As I said, when my kids were at nursery and my salary was about £3000 less, I got £500 a month tax credits. Suddenly they start school, my salary goes up a bit and I get... £54 a month. Yet they still need to go to morning and after school which cost me about £250 a month. I am worse off now, yet I will have to forget about CB when others better off will not be affected.


----------



## RCMC

I do agree with the reforms in the benefit system but as I put in an earlier post if they are going to take away high earners child benefit then they shuld be taking free bus passes off and winter tax allowence off wealthy pensioners or making long term unemployed people do work in the community for the greater good as well. I have no problem with reforms but it should be fair and not just hit certain groups.


----------



## indy and lara

NG09 said:


> clara123 said:
> 
> 
> _Funny bacause the higher my husbands salary has gone the less he seems to work._[/B] I'm sure it's harder for people knocking their pan in day in day out for peanuts. JMO.
> 
> Well he clearly has landed lucky then because it certainly didn't work like that for my OH or me when I was still working.Click to expand...


----------



## ClaireLouise

It's not the high earners fault for earning what they earn. I'd ove to be on more money! But the way they have worked it out is unfair. But I too would rather it go to those who need it. My OH is training to be an engineer and if in 2 years he's on £45k (I highly doubt but just per se) then we'd be without the CB but then we'd still be better off than we were now (if OH earned more in future).


----------



## FBbaby

I tihnk all the puffing and huffing on my part comes down to one thing, it is not individual salaries that should be considered, but total household income, including all tax credits, disability benefits, housing benefits, child maintenance etc..., then yeah, anyone over 'x' amount gets penalised.


----------



## bluebaby

indy and lara said:


> NG09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clara123 said:
> 
> 
> _Funny bacause the higher my husbands salary has gone the less he seems to work._[/B] I'm sure it's harder for people knocking their pan in day in day out for peanuts. JMO.
> 
> Well he clearly has landed lucky then because it certainly didn't work like that for my OH or me when I was still working.Click to expand...
> 
> Me neither. I work 8 to 5 everyday and depending on my schedule can work until 7-8pm (refusing to do it now because of the Lo) and my hubby left for work at 7am this morning and he is still not homeClick to expand...


----------



## pheobe

These threads are ALWAYS the same!!!

Me & my OH earn a good wage between us and do not need CB but I take it and use. Although I do not use it in the mannor in which it was intended, which tbh I don't think many of us on here do; regardless of income.

CB (of many different previous names) was introduced following the end of the second world war to help families with the financial burden of raising numerous children; as was encouraged to increase the birth rate. 

Later the tories managed to turn it into a tax benefit which only the 'better off' benefitted from and more recently (1980's) labour reformed this benefit primarily to enable the 'poorer' families access to this benefit. They also introduced payments for first born children (previously under family allowance there was no payment for the first child) Labours wider intention was to create a 'a single universal system of family support'.

Bit silly really as there isn't a universal need for support! Hence some people needing the CB others just wanting it.

IMO as someone who claims child benefit the system is outdated, all benefits these days should be means tested there shouldn't really be any one payment which you get no matter what. 

I do think though once our economy is back in the black 'some' tax relief should be given to higher earners as currently in this country there is little encouragement for people to strive for better. CB is currently worth £240 pa for me; if at the end of the tax year I had been employed for the full year and my wage increased (aside from cost of living) I was given a rebate for a similair amount I'd be a very happy bunny even if this was paid into a pension scheme or something similair - it would be something back. The families who need CB could then be given higher amount based on their income. 

just my thoughts


----------



## Missy86

pheobe said:


> These threads are ALWAYS the same!!!
> 
> Me & my OH earn a good wage between us and do not need CB but I take it and use. Although I do not use it in the mannor in which it was intended, which tbh I don't think many of us on here do; regardless of income.
> 
> CB (of many different previous names) was introduced following the end of the second world war to help families with the financial burden of raising numerous children; as was encouraged to increase the birth rate.
> 
> Later the tories managed to turn it into a tax benefit which only the 'better off' benefitted from and more recently (1980's) labour reformed this benefit primarily to enable the 'poorer' families access to this benefit. They also introduced payments for first born children (previously under family allowance there was no payment for the first child) Labours wider intention was to create a 'a single universal system of family support'.
> 
> Bit silly really as there isn't a universal need for support! Hence some people needing the CB others just wanting it.
> 
> IMO as someone who claims child benefit the system is outdated, all benefits these days should be means tested there shouldn't really be any one payment which you get no matter what.
> 
> I do think though once our economy is back in the black 'some' tax relief should be given to higher earners as currently in this country there is little encouragement for people to strive for better. CB is currently worth £240 pa for me; if at the end of the tax year I had been employed for the full year and my wage increased (aside from cost of living) I was given a rebate for a similair amount I'd be a very happy bunny even if this was paid into a pension scheme or something similair - it would be something back. The families who need CB could then be given higher amount based on their income.
> 
> just my thoughts

I am gonna sound really thick but what are we meant to use it for


----------



## NG09

bluebaby said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NG09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clara123 said:
> 
> 
> _Funny bacause the higher my husbands salary has gone the less he seems to work._[/B] I'm sure it's harder for people knocking their pan in day in day out for peanuts. JMO.
> 
> Well he clearly has landed lucky then because it certainly didn't work like that for my OH or me when I was still working.Click to expand...
> 
> Me neither. I work 8 to 5 everyday and depending on my schedule can work until 7-8pm (refusing to do it now because of the Lo) and my hubby left for work at 7am this morning and he is still not homeClick to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he is just good at delegation!!! lolClick to expand...


----------



## FBbaby

double posting oops, puffing too much !


----------



## indy and lara

bluebaby said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NG09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clara123 said:
> 
> 
> _Funny bacause the higher my husbands salary has gone the less he seems to work._[/B] I'm sure it's harder for people knocking their pan in day in day out for peanuts. JMO.
> 
> Well he clearly has landed lucky then because it certainly didn't work like that for my OH or me when I was still working.Click to expand...
> 
> Me neither. I work 8 to 5 everyday and depending on my schedule can work until 7-8pm (refusing to do it now because of the Lo) and my hubby left for work at 7am this morning and he is still not homeClick to expand...
> 
> Yip, familiar story. I used to work 8-6 but was paid for 35 hours a week. OH was at work at 6.30am this morning- he finished at 6pm. A 37 hour paid week which is always at least 55 hours a week. So yes, good salaries but there is a price to pay too.Click to expand...


----------



## RCMC

FBbaby said:


> I tihnk all the puffing and huffing on my part comes down to one thing, it is not individual salaries that should be considered, but total household income, including all tax credits, disability benefits, housing benefits, child maintenance etc..., then yeah, anyone over 'x' amount gets penalised.

Couldn't agree more. If they want reform because the country is bankrupt that's understandable but it should be done in a fair and transparent manner.


----------



## bluebaby

NG09 said:


> bluebaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NG09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clara123 said:
> 
> 
> _Funny bacause the higher my husbands salary has gone the less he seems to work._[/B] I'm sure it's harder for people knocking their pan in day in day out for peanuts. JMO.
> 
> Well he clearly has landed lucky then because it certainly didn't work like that for my OH or me when I was still working.Click to expand...
> 
> Me neither. I work 8 to 5 everyday and depending on my schedule can work until 7-8pm (refusing to do it now because of the Lo) and my hubby left for work at 7am this morning and he is still not homeClick to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he is just good at delegation!!! lolClick to expand...
> 
> Yeah maybe he is, I do think men are good at delegating :haha: I wish I had the option to delegate.Click to expand...


----------



## Lynz16

RCMC said:


> I do agree with the reforms in the benefit system but as I put in an earlier post if they are going to take away high earners child benefit then they shuld be taking free bus passes off and winter tax allowence off wealthy pensioners or making long term unemployed people do work in the community for the greater good as well. I have no problem with reforms but it should be fair and not just hit certain groups.

I totally agree with everything you've said here. 
We personally won't be affected by this as me and OH are both fairly average earners but I totally disagree with taking away the only benefit that most higher earners will ever get and yet they are expected to pay the most tax? seems the wrong way round really.

I live in a fairly poor area and yet there are some people who have never worked a day in their life who through claiming benefits are much better off than those who are working (and I don't mean those who genuinely can't work, I mean healthy people that just can't be bothered) really it's those people that should be getting targeted and not those who are actually contributing the most to our countries tax system.

I also think that it's unfair to say that just because you earn more that the £80 a month won't be missed as everyones circumstances are different and if someone is earning more the chances are that they will also have higher outgoings and although its easy to say 'I survive on X amount' it's not as if someone paying a high mortgage can suddenly turn around and say no I'm not paying that amount any more sorry, it doesn't quite work like that unfortunately, most mortgages are tied in to a certain term


----------



## NG09

bluebaby said:


> NG09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluebaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NG09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clara123 said:
> 
> 
> _Funny bacause the higher my husbands salary has gone the less he seems to work._[/B] I'm sure it's harder for people knocking their pan in day in day out for peanuts. JMO.
> 
> Well he clearly has landed lucky then because it certainly didn't work like that for my OH or me when I was still working.Click to expand...
> 
> Me neither. I work 8 to 5 everyday and depending on my schedule can work until 7-8pm (refusing to do it now because of the Lo) and my hubby left for work at 7am this morning and he is still not homeClick to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he is just good at delegation!!! lolClick to expand...
> 
> Yeah maybe he is, I do think men are good at delegating :haha: I wish I had the option to delegate.Click to expand...
> 
> Haha!! So do I, mind you he might be able to delegate at work but by no means gets away with it at home!!! I'm the boss here!!! lol :rofl:Click to expand...


----------



## pheobe

Missy86 said:


> pheobe said:
> 
> 
> These threads are ALWAYS the same!!!
> 
> Me & my OH earn a good wage between us and do not need CB but I take it and use. Although I do not use it in the mannor in which it was intended, which tbh I don't think many of us on here do; regardless of income.
> 
> CB (of many different previous names) was introduced following the end of the second world war to help families with the financial burden of raising numerous children; as was encouraged to increase the birth rate.
> 
> Later the tories managed to turn it into a tax benefit which only the 'better off' benefitted from and more recently (1980's) labour reformed this benefit primarily to enable the 'poorer' families access to this benefit. They also introduced payments for first born children (previously under family allowance there was no payment for the first child) Labours wider intention was to create a 'a single universal system of family support'.
> 
> Bit silly really as there isn't a universal need for support! Hence some people needing the CB others just wanting it.
> 
> IMO as someone who claims child benefit the system is outdated, all benefits these days should be means tested there shouldn't really be any one payment which you get no matter what.
> 
> I do think though once our economy is back in the black 'some' tax relief should be given to higher earners as currently in this country there is little encouragement for people to strive for better. CB is currently worth £240 pa for me; if at the end of the tax year I had been employed for the full year and my wage increased (aside from cost of living) I was given a rebate for a similair amount I'd be a very happy bunny even if this was paid into a pension scheme or something similair - it would be something back. The families who need CB could then be given higher amount based on their income.
> 
> just my thoughts
> 
> I am gonna sound really thick but what are we meant to use it forClick to expand...

It was intended for necessities hun; food, clothes. 

I know I use mine for toys and treats and savings as others have mentioned 
x


----------



## AP

RCMC said:


> I do agree with the reforms in the benefit system but as I put in an earlier post if they are going to take away high earners child benefit then they shuld be taking free bus passes off and winter tax allowence off wealthy pensioners or making long term unemployed people do work in the community for the greater good as well. I have no problem with reforms but it should be fair and not just hit certain groups.

Wealthy pensioners are hard to come by methinks, councils will take what they can scrounge off pensioners. My poor gran lives off her pension and that alone she barely gets by. She buys bugger all! I couldnt even live off the food shes got. My grandad started a pension before he died in order to help her should he go and she gets this now, but because she has to declare it, the council take it right off her, EVERY penny. If she didnt have it, she'd get her house paid for her. So my grandad wasted his time, really.


----------



## Missy86

pheobe said:


> Missy86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pheobe said:
> 
> 
> These threads are ALWAYS the same!!!
> 
> Me & my OH earn a good wage between us and do not need CB but I take it and use. Although I do not use it in the mannor in which it was intended, which tbh I don't think many of us on here do; regardless of income.
> 
> CB (of many different previous names) was introduced following the end of the second world war to help families with the financial burden of raising numerous children; as was encouraged to increase the birth rate.
> 
> Later the tories managed to turn it into a tax benefit which only the 'better off' benefitted from and more recently (1980's) labour reformed this benefit primarily to enable the 'poorer' families access to this benefit. They also introduced payments for first born children (previously under family allowance there was no payment for the first child) Labours wider intention was to create a 'a single universal system of family support'.
> 
> Bit silly really as there isn't a universal need for support! Hence some people needing the CB others just wanting it.
> 
> IMO as someone who claims child benefit the system is outdated, all benefits these days should be means tested there shouldn't really be any one payment which you get no matter what.
> 
> I do think though once our economy is back in the black 'some' tax relief should be given to higher earners as currently in this country there is little encouragement for people to strive for better. CB is currently worth £240 pa for me; if at the end of the tax year I had been employed for the full year and my wage increased (aside from cost of living) I was given a rebate for a similair amount I'd be a very happy bunny even if this was paid into a pension scheme or something similair - it would be something back. The families who need CB could then be given higher amount based on their income.
> 
> just my thoughts
> 
> I am gonna sound really thick but what are we meant to use it forClick to expand...
> 
> It was intended for necessities hun; food, clothes.
> 
> I know I use mine for toys and treats and savings as others have mentioned
> xClick to expand...

Yes I put some away in Rhys's savings, it also pays for his formula and nappies


----------



## moomoo

I'm one of those people that worked out my hours in order to make myself better off. If I was to go back to work an extra hour a week I would lose £70 so for me it was never worth it!! Me and oh earned (before mat leave) what I would say was a decent wage and we still wouldn't even touch 45 grand between us.

I don't see how £20 a week is going to make a lot of difference to people who earn so much?


----------



## FBbaby

moomoo said:


> I'm one of those people that worked out my hours in order to make myself better off. If I was to go back to work an extra hour a week I would lose £70 so for me it was never worth it!! Me and oh earned (before mat leave) what I would say was a decent wage and we still wouldn't even touch 45 grand between us.
> 
> I don't see how £20 a week is going to make a lot of difference to people who earn so much?

the same difference that made you decide to work one hour less to get an extra £70. What if you'd be told you didn't have the choice to work that hour less, just had to accept to work more for less? Same principle.


----------



## RCMC

sb22 said:


> RCMC said:
> 
> 
> I do agree with the reforms in the benefit system but as I put in an earlier post if they are going to take away high earners child benefit then they shuld be taking free bus passes off and winter tax allowence off wealthy pensioners or making long term unemployed people do work in the community for the greater good as well. I have no problem with reforms but it should be fair and not just hit certain groups.
> 
> Wealthy pensioners are hard to come by methinks, councils will take what they can scrounge off pensioners. My poor gran lives off her pension and that alone she barely gets by. She buys bugger all! I couldnt even live off the food shes got. My grandad started a pension before he died in order to help her should he go and she gets this now, but because she has to declare it, the council take it right off her, EVERY penny. If she didnt have it, she'd get her house paid for her. So my grandad wasted his time, really.Click to expand...

Of course I'm not talking about people like this. There are however plenty of very wealthy pensioners. The over-65's have the highest rates of disposable income in the country statistically speaking actually and there are plenty of them who can easily afford to pay for their own public transport or winter fuel bills. That's what I'm getting at.


----------



## cb1

Personally I think CB should only be available for the first 2 children (with the exception of mulitple births) and then only available to those who really need it. Theres a lot of discussion here about people earning in excess of 44k being able to do without and extra £20 per week, but I think the limit could be much lower, and based on household income to make it fairer.


----------



## moomoo

FBbaby said:


> moomoo said:
> 
> 
> I'm one of those people that worked out my hours in order to make myself better off. If I was to go back to work an extra hour a week I would lose £70 so for me it was never worth it!! Me and oh earned (before mat leave) what I would say was a decent wage and we still wouldn't even touch 45 grand between us.
> 
> I don't see how £20 a week is going to make a lot of difference to people who earn so much?
> 
> the same difference that made you decide to work one hour less to get an extra £70. What if you'd be told you didn't have the choice to work that hour less, just had to accept to work more for less? Same principle.Click to expand...

yes but if it had been £20 difference I would happily have gone back for more hours? :shrug:


----------



## Foogirl

I do wish people would stop saying 44k is a lot of money and insinuating those who earn it are rolling in money. It's a teacher and secretary. It's a nurse and a policeman. Two people earning less than the average wage. And with the cost of living increases and the fact that even after the bust, property prices are sky high - added to the fact it is outwith the threshold for any other benefits, that doesn't leave a lot left over for many families.

That aside, even if you think that someone earning 44k can well afford to lose it, can you really give justification for a working couple being entitled to it at 44k (or even 87k) but a family where one parent isn't working but earning 44k, not being entitled to it?

I can afford not to have it. I am putting it aside for Abby. And to whomever it was who piously stated "that's not what it's for," I beg your pardon that is exactly what it is for. To provide for a child, whatever you think your child needs. I know for sure when Abby gets to be 18 she is going to need that money one way or the other. Whether it be for university (which by that point will no doubt be hugely expensive) or for a deposit for her first property, or to help her through her first working years when thanks to the excesses of the last generation and successive governments failing to prepare for the future and wasting money, she will be taxed to the hilt for everything, a nest egg is what she needs. It will be a struggle to continue to do it after 2013. Especially as I will likely not be working. It is Abby who will lose out because of it.

Of course I accept we all have to take a share of the pain (although the paycut I took was painful enough without an increase in VAT, fuel duty and a loss of CB too) but it needs to be a fair system and you either need it at 44k, or you don't. If not, why will some people earning that, and well above that still get it? If you are going to take away the only thing I get back from the government with all the tax that I pay, you'd better explain why that is fair.


----------



## bloodbinds

Personally i dont think anyone should get CB and it should get scraped completely. Would save us (as a country) a lot of money!

But i know there are those who really need it :-/


----------



## babybaillie

If u can afford not to have it. Then im sure u can afford to put the money away for her out ur own pocket. Then u will feel more satisfied that the nest egg she will have was all earned and paid for by u!


----------



## Mrs Dot

I think it is fair, at the end of the day and like many on here have said, if I was earning that much money I wouldn't expect any handouts whatsoever and would see Child Benefit as a 'nice additional extra'. And as for the people moaning about mortgages to pay, as one person I heard interviewed about it today quite rightly said, 'You cut your garment according to the cloth you have' ie. live to your means and you become more careful about money. 

I count each and every penny almost that goes in and out each month so we don't get into huge amounts of debt, and we don't buy things that we would like but we don't need ie. a bigger house, an iphone each, big flat screen tv, new kitchen, etc etc. We'd all like an amazing house and all that goes with the Celebrity lifestyle everyone seems to be constantly chasing these days, but in reality why can't people be happy with their lot and work hard for what they have rather than expecting everyone else to give it to them on a plate?


----------



## RainbowDrop_x

I know people who have their CB going into a separate account because "It's nothing to us"..I rely on that money! Not to put in an account for DD (as much as I would love to) but to buy her milk/nappies/wipes. It doesn't sound alot but when that £20 a week keeps you're baby fed & dry it may aswell be a grand!

It annoys me to see people getting it who don't need it. Don't agree it's fair to take it away without assessing who does and doesn't benefit from it though!


----------



## britgirl82

Turning this on its head - why should people who work hard to earn a decent living (and by the way, £44k isn't a huge amount in the SE at all) have to pay for other people's children through their taxes? Why should I have to pay for child benefit to support other people's decisions (or mistakes)? If you can't afford a child - don't have one. A child is not a right - take some responsibility. 

Rant over. 

Question - Does anyone know what will happen to the state pension protection provided to women claiming child benefit? Currently anyone claiming child benefit is counted for pension purposes as though they are paying NI (and he/she therefore retains their entitlement to the state pension). Will we lose out on that as well (wouldn't put it past the government - yet more penalising people who dare to have worked hard their whole lives and earn above average..)?

xx


----------



## Mrs Dot

Foogirl said:


> I do wish people would stop saying 44k is a lot of money and insinuating those who earn it are rolling in money. It's a teacher and secretary. It's a nurse and a policeman. Two people earning less than the average wage. And with the cost of living increases and the fact that even after the bust, property prices are sky high - added to the fact it is outwith the threshold for any other benefits, that doesn't leave a lot left over for many families.
> 
> That aside, even if you think that someone earning 44k can well afford to lose it, can you really give justification for a working couple being entitled to it at 44k (or even 87k) but a family where one parent isn't working but earning 44k, not being entitled to it?
> 
> I can afford not to have it. I am putting it aside for Abby. And to whomever it was who piously stated "that's not what it's for," I beg your pardon that is exactly what it is for. To provide for a child, whatever you think your child needs. I know for sure when Abby gets to be 18 she is going to need that money one way or the other. Whether it be for university (which by that point will no doubt be hugely expensive) or for a deposit for her first property, or to help her through her first working years when thanks to the excesses of the last generation and successive governments failing to prepare for the future and wasting money, she will be taxed to the hilt for everything, a nest egg is what she needs. It will be a struggle to continue to do it after 2013. Especially as I will likely not be working. It is Abby who will lose out because of it.
> 
> Of course I accept we all have to take a share of the pain (although the paycut I took was painful enough without an increase in VAT, fuel duty and a loss of CB too) but it needs to be a fair system and you either need it at 44k, or you don't. If not, why will some people earning that, and well above that still get it? If you are going to take away the only thing I get back from the government with all the tax that I pay, you'd better explain why that is fair.

Totally agree with you on everything you have said. I think it will be individuals who earn 44k not combined wages. We are in a similar position and when you add everything up we break even with one or two necessities or diy jobs getting done at the end of the month. Apparently us teachers are rolling in it???! I'd seriously love to be paid 44k for 'babysitting' other people's kids all day!!!!


----------



## RCMC

babybaillie said:


> If u can afford not to have it. Then im sure u can afford to put the money away for her out ur own pocket. Then u will feel more satisfied that the nest egg she will have was all earned and paid for by u!

I'm sorry but I think this is a bit rich! People who are on a higher rate of tax will put far more money into the system in their lifetime than they would ever get out of it so therefore if they did receive child benefit it would be earned and paid for by them.


----------



## xbabybumpx

my hubby earns about £39,000 but that money supports both of us,and lo. and beleive me we are not rolling in it. we live in an upstairs flat, so far from the high life. that £20 helps pay towards nappies,formula and whatever else she needs. my dh pays a hell of alot of tax,and i know people hate this saying but he is getting a tiny little amount off the goverment,but by god has he payed into that kitty!


----------



## xxembobxx

bloodbinds said:


> Personally i dont think anyone should get CB and it should get scraped completely. Would save us (as a country) a lot of money!

I agree :thumbup:
As I understood it those on the lowest income and entitled to benefits lose their CB anyway as it is taken into account as income? I know that used to be the case when you claimed IS for yourself and children and not the IS for yourself and child tax credits for kids as it stands now.
I would be happy for it to be scrapped altogether as tax credits are means tested so those in need would still get help.
I had heard that immigrants were entitled to CB for their children who were still resident in another country! Scrapping CB would get rid of this abuse of the system. Mind you I think I read it in the Daily Mail so I could be wrong lol.


----------



## beckibee

rhiannon said:


> discoclare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhiannon said:
> 
> 
> i havent read through all the replies but i think its about time our government stops punishing people who have done their best to get a high paying job. if they pay tax they should be entitled to benefits!!
> 
> i disagree i'm afraid. i don't think high earners should be "entitled" to benefits. i would rather my tax went into healthcare and our state schools rather than giving 80 quid back to me (though it was a nice little bonus!). just my opinion!Click to expand...
> 
> i think high earners should be entitled to the same as anyone else. i hate the way this country tries to make everyone the same. why should someone who only earns 12k a year get topped up so that they have the same kinda money as someone who earns 18k. sickens me!!!Click to expand...

It sickens me when i think of all the children in this country living under the poverty line!!


----------



## bathbabe

for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!


----------



## cherryglitter

Haha i'd love to earn 44k I really would :D I'd be so chuffed. I guess it's one of those things. You never know what it's like until you're in that position! So to be honest, I guess i can't judge someone else situation. 

I do think CB should be means tested though, but I understand that it would cost a fortune. 

CB was a universal benefit, so I guess if one can't have it, why should the rest. (But then that could be the same for housing benefit etc) I don't really know what im getting at lol... im arguing with myself now! :haha:

Im tired. Shhhhhh.


----------



## mumoffive

Well here is a counter argument. If a family recieves about 45k collectively they are still entitled unlike one person in a family earning that same amount...but what noone has commented upon is that in the household where one parent is the breadwinner on a higher tax bracket, they still have the potential to have another parent earn money to bring in but they choose not to do so. Just thought id throw the cat amongst the pigeons so to speak!


----------



## xbabybumpx

bathbabe said:


> for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!

my husband isint handed his money,he works damn hard for it,which im sure is the case for everyone who earns £44k. im not having a go,im just stating a point:hugs:


----------



## Foogirl

babybaillie said:


> If u can afford not to have it. Then im sure u can afford to put the money away for her out ur own pocket. Then u will feel more satisfied that the nest egg she will have was all earned and paid for by u!

It is all earned and paid for by me. Where do you think CB comes from? And yes I can afford to put that much away, and I do pretty much put double the CB in to her account. But there is no way I can afford to put the whole amount in so she will end up with substantially less.



bathbabe said:


> for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!

I did live on 18k, I have lived on a lot less. And for sure if I hadn't ever progressed in my career and married someone who was also on a good wage, no doubt I'd still manage on 18k. However, are you suggesting that as a person moves up a career ladder, they shouldn't adjust their lifestyle accordingly? Should I have kept the 15 year old car I had? Should I still live in the cramped flat with a lodger, in a dodgy area? Most people live within their means and if you earned 44k, you would know exactly what to do with it - you'd do the same as everyone else does, adjust your lifestyle accordingly. That doesn't mean you wouldn't miss a little bit of help.

But you both totally missed my point, or just didn't answer. Why would myself and Mr Foo be judged not to need (or apparently even deserve) CB when a working couple earning the same amount are seemingly entitled to it?


----------



## Foogirl

mumoffive said:


> Well here is a counter argument. If a family recieves about 45k collectively they are still entitled unlike one person in a family earning that same amount...but what noone has commented upon is that in the household where one parent is the breadwinner on a higher tax bracket, they still have the potential to have another parent earn money to bring in but they choose not to do so. Just thought id throw the cat amongst the pigeons so to speak!

Absolutely I agree, it would be my choice. But given that CB was supposed to be the kind of benefit that allowed parents to make that choice, it seems silly to be taking it away.

Although, of course, it is also possible that the cost of childcare means that in fact there isn't really a choice and that the family would actually be worse off if the other parent works.


----------



## mumoffive

Its all relative to what your outgoings are and thats the main point. Most people have assumed child benefit in with their income and now taking it away, when all the prices are rising etc, is going to cripple some families. I think its a disgrace that some people judge others too without any idea of what their circumstances are. Some may even earn that amount but may be bankrupt.


----------



## bathbabe

xbabybumpx said:


> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!
> 
> my husband isint handed his money,he works damn hard for it,which im sure is the case for everyone who earns £44k. im not having a go,im just stating a point:hugs:Click to expand...

Last year combined we earnt 27k. And we both worked damn hard for it, just because we dont earn 40 odd k each doesnt mean we dont work hard. And i never said people that earn 44k didnt work hard! My OH works 42hrs a week and brings home £800-£850 a month. And i never said people that earn 44k have it handed to them, or implied that in any way, shape or form. I just said that it is alot of money.


----------



## mumoffive

Its a lot of money to a student, its a lot of money to someone on benefits or on a minimum wage but believe me, its actually not that much once tax is deducted and you have paid of the debts you have accrued because you thought you could afford them and because you had counted on the amount of child benefit in that total. It is all relative.


----------



## Foogirl

mumoffive said:


> ......you have paid of the debts you have accrued.....

....mainly when you were a student dreaming about living on 44k (and sometimes spending as if you were) :haha::haha:


----------



## xbabybumpx

bathbabe said:


> xbabybumpx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!
> 
> my husband isint handed his money,he works damn hard for it,which im sure is the case for everyone who earns £44k. im not having a go,im just stating a point:hugs:Click to expand...
> 
> Last year combined we earnt 27k. And we both worked damn hard for it, just because we dont earn 40 odd k each doesnt mean we dont work hard. And i never said people that earn 44k didnt work hard! My OH works 42hrs a week and brings home £800-£850 a month. And i never said people that earn 44k have it handed to them, or implied that in any way, shape or form. I just said that it is alot of money.Click to expand...

you said and i quote "try living on 18k maybe then you will understand" people arent born earning 44k,they work there way up. so alot of people would of started off earning 18k combined so they do know what its like


----------



## mumoffive

Foogirl said:


> mumoffive said:
> 
> 
> ......you have paid of the debts you have accrued.....
> 
> ....mainly when you were a student dreaming about living on 44k (and sometimes spending as if you were) :haha::haha:Click to expand...

lol..yes and not to mention the student loan debt that you are still paying off years down the line which is also deducted from your salary!!!


----------



## bathbabe

Foogirl said:


> babybaillie said:
> 
> 
> If u can afford not to have it. Then im sure u can afford to put the money away for her out ur own pocket. Then u will feel more satisfied that the nest egg she will have was all earned and paid for by u!
> 
> It is all earned and paid for by me. Where do you think CB comes from? And yes I can afford to put that much away, and I do pretty much put double the CB in to her account. But there is no way I can afford to put the whole amount in so she will end up with substantially less.
> 
> 
> 
> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!Click to expand...
> 
> I did live on 18k, I have lived on a lot less. And for sure if I hadn't ever progressed in my career and married someone who was also on a good wage, no doubt I'd still manage on 18k. However, are you suggesting that as a person moves up a career ladder, they shouldn't adjust their lifestyle accordingly? Should I have kept the 15 year old car I had? Should I still live in the cramped flat with a lodger, in a dodgy area? Most people live within their means and if you earned 44k, you would know exactly what to do with it - you'd do the same as everyone else does, adjust your lifestyle accordingly. That doesn't mean you wouldn't miss a little bit of help.
> 
> But you both totally missed my point, or just didn't answer. Why would myself and Mr Foo be judged not to need (or apparently even deserve) CB when a working couple earning the same amount are seemingly entitled to it?Click to expand...

I was just saying 44k is alot of money, i never said you shouldnt be entitled / deserve it.


----------



## samface182

44k a year is ALOT of money to me. i can never imagine earning that amount of money a year


----------



## bathbabe

xbabybumpx said:


> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xbabybumpx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!
> 
> my husband isint handed his money,he works damn hard for it,which im sure is the case for everyone who earns £44k. im not having a go,im just stating a point:hugs:Click to expand...
> 
> Last year combined we earnt 27k. And we both worked damn hard for it, just because we dont earn 40 odd k each doesnt mean we dont work hard. And i never said people that earn 44k didnt work hard! My OH works 42hrs a week and brings home £800-£850 a month. And i never said people that earn 44k have it handed to them, or implied that in any way, shape or form. I just said that it is alot of money.Click to expand...
> 
> you said and i quote "try living on 18k maybe then you will understand" people arent born earning 44k,they work there way up. so alot of people would of started off earning 18k combined so they do know what its likeClick to expand...

If you know what its like earning little why moan when your earning over double what you started with?


----------



## loverguts

Oh boo hoo its so unfair isnt it. 
Theres no point in moaning cos its gonna happen anyway. Hehe!


----------



## mumoffive

At the end of the day, why are they hurting families? I think the whole thing is a disgrace. Surely there were other ways? This govermnent seem destined to rip away anything that is family orientated. They have taken away the trust fund, tax credits for many, health in pregnancy grant. Just seems wrong to me when bankers are still announcing huge bonuses of money we could only dream about.


----------



## xbabybumpx

bathbabe said:


> xbabybumpx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xbabybumpx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> for those saying 44k isnt alot, maybe you should try living on the 18k (combined) that we are getting this year. Maybe then you will understand that yes, 44k is a hell of a lot of money to some people. We pay rent, council tax, 2cars and we dont have a bad lifestyle. If i earnt 44k, well, i wouldnt even know what to do with it!
> 
> my husband isint handed his money,he works damn hard for it,which im sure is the case for everyone who earns £44k. im not having a go,im just stating a point:hugs:Click to expand...
> 
> Last year combined we earnt 27k. And we both worked damn hard for it, just because we dont earn 40 odd k each doesnt mean we dont work hard. And i never said people that earn 44k didnt work hard! My OH works 42hrs a week and brings home £800-£850 a month. And i never said people that earn 44k have it handed to them, or implied that in any way, shape or form. I just said that it is alot of money.Click to expand...
> 
> you said and i quote "try living on 18k maybe then you will understand" people arent born earning 44k,they work there way up. so alot of people would of started off earning 18k combined so they do know what its likeClick to expand...
> 
> If you know what its like earning little why moan when your earning over double what you started with?Click to expand...

im not moaning at all:dohh:


----------



## Foogirl

bathbabe said:


> I was just saying 44k is alot of money, i never said you shouldnt be entitled / deserve it.

Yep, you never said that. I didn't mean to suggest you did.



> At the end of the day, why are they hurting families? I think the whole thing is a disgrace. Surely there were other ways? This govermnent seem destined to rip away anything that is family orientated. They have taken away the trust fund, tax credits for many, health in pregnancy grant. Just seems wrong to me when bankers are still announcing huge bonuses of money we could only dream about.

Was thinking exactly this the other day and also wondering if they stopped the £500 pregnancy grant too?


----------



## bathbabe

samface182 said:


> 44k a year is ALOT of money to me. i can never imagine earning that amount of money a year

Me either...


----------



## WW1

For me this whole issue is a much bigger thing than higher earners losing £20 per week.

Currently, the only universal benefit is CB. That means there is no stigma attached to getting it - it has a massively high take up and no-one thinks anything of it. It also means that people feel they get something out of the benefits system, no matter how little.

Other benefits, which are means tested or linked to specific requirements, (jobseekers, housing benefit, incapacity etc) have an enormous stigma attached to them. How often do you hear "dole dodgers - can't be bothered to get a job; they could work but pretend they're disabled" etc. etc. In my opinion, it wont be long before the same stigma is attached to CB (only have children for the money etc. etc). Higher earners are more likely to resent a system they never see any obvious benefit from. Many of those on benefits have enough to deal with on a day to day without added stigma!

Personally, in our household we can live without the money (although it has come in very handy, especially when I was on mat leave) and I'm a believer in paying tax to ensure a safety net for our most vulnerable in society. However, many do not share that view and I fear it will add to the divisive society which already has a horrible gulf between "rich and poor".

(And before anyone mis-quotes me, I do *not *feel those on benefits are dole dodgers etc!! - Far from it :flower:)


----------



## CocoaOne

We won't be affected by this as we wouldn't earn that much between us even if I went back to work full time. 

Whilst i don't think that the current proposal is fair for single wage families earning over 44k, Cameron just said on BBC Breakfast that it's cheaper to just cut CB from the high tax payers than it is to means test each household. This makes sense, but I'd prefer if they published their cost analysis so the public could make an informed decision. Do parties release that kind of information, or do we just take their word for it?

As others have said, 44k really isn't that much in the SE.

I'm more concerned about the other Tory announcement - they will be capping the amount of benefits that any family can receive to £500 a week. Apparently this will cause families from London and the SE to move to cheaper areas - where there are less jobs anyway. It strikes me as the posh Tories wanting to 'cleanse' London of the poorer families... but then I do hate the Tories! :haha:


----------



## stephx

Foogirl said:


> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> I was just saying 44k is alot of money, i never said you shouldnt be entitled / deserve it.
> 
> Yep, you never said that. I didn't mean to suggest you did.
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, why are they hurting families? I think the whole thing is a disgrace. Surely there were other ways? This govermnent seem destined to rip away anything that is family orientated. They have taken away the trust fund, tax credits for many, health in pregnancy grant. Just seems wrong to me when bankers are still announcing huge bonuses of money we could only dream about.Click to expand...
> 
> Was thinking exactly this the other day and *also wondering if they stopped the £500 pregnancy grant too?*Click to expand...

They've restricted it to your first child only x


----------



## Gingerspice

Its good that we have all debated this as it has show them that their plans are not liked, so they have said they might revise their decision.

I agree that people may not be living luxurious lives if earning over 40,000 but its about perspective. Yes I'm sure it is easy to spend that money, but if the government are of the opinion you can live on the minimum wage only then you are in a better position than that. And if they're capping the benefits to £26,000 then they obviously are of the opinion that that can also be lived on (which actually is far higher than 50% of the population earn). Those that do earn more than this, if they chose to not spend that extra (beyond the minimum that we can supposedly live on) presumably would have a lot more extra cash than those who only earn the minimum supposedly required to live. So although you might have extra outgoings because you are used to having that extra, if push came to shove, it is possible to live on less. That is not aimed to anyone specific - it is a general thing to consider you are in a far better position than many others and although relative there is still a basic minimum you do need to live which will be the same for those on the minimum wage as those earning more.


----------



## mumoffive

Gingerspice said:


> Its good that we have all debated this as it has show them that their plans are not liked, so they have said they might revise their decision.
> 
> I agree that people may not be living luxurious lives if earning over 40,000 but its about perspective. Yes I'm sure it is easy to spend that money, but if the government are of the opinion you can live on the minimum wage only then you are in a better position than that. And if they're capping the benefits to £26,000 then they obviously are of the opinion that that can also be lived on (which actually is far higher than 50% of the population earn). Those that do earn more than this, if they chose to not spend that extra (beyond the minimum that we can supposedly live on) presumably would have a lot more extra cash than those who only earn the minimum supposedly required to live. So although you might have extra outgoings because you are used to having that extra, if push came to shove, it is possible to live on less. That is not aimed to anyone specific - it is a general thing to consider you are in a far better position than many others and although relative there is still a basic minimum you do need to live which will be the same for those on the minimum wage as those earning more.

Thats all fine and well saying that, but people have debts!! If suddenly their income was to reduce to a minimum wage lets say for talking sake, they would need to sell their houses, their cars etc. The point is, that many families use this money and have used it for years counting it when they do their sums to afford things! It is the fact that it is being taken away. It is the fact that everything is going to be more expensive and their is no extra money taking that shortfall in incomes into account. Your argument is pointless. Try taking a percentage of someone who is earning 18k off and ask them to cope! Yes the wage is low but they have worked out how much they have to spend on what each month and the point is, take something away and it could put you into difficulty regardless of what income you are on!


----------



## Gingerspice

mumoffive said:


> Gingerspice said:
> 
> 
> Its good that we have all debated this as it has show them that their plans are not liked, so they have said they might revise their decision.
> 
> I agree that people may not be living luxurious lives if earning over 40,000 but its about perspective. Yes I'm sure it is easy to spend that money, but if the government are of the opinion you can live on the minimum wage only then you are in a better position than that. And if they're capping the benefits to £26,000 then they obviously are of the opinion that that can also be lived on (which actually is far higher than 50% of the population earn). Those that do earn more than this, if they chose to not spend that extra (beyond the minimum that we can supposedly live on) presumably would have a lot more extra cash than those who only earn the minimum supposedly required to live. So although you might have extra outgoings because you are used to having that extra, if push came to shove, it is possible to live on less. That is not aimed to anyone specific - it is a general thing to consider you are in a far better position than many others and although relative there is still a basic minimum you do need to live which will be the same for those on the minimum wage as those earning more.
> 
> Thats all fine and well saying that, but people have debts!! If suddenly their income was to reduce to a minimum wage lets say for talking sake, they would need to sell their houses, their cars etc. The point is, that many families use this money and have used it for years counting it when they do their sums to afford things! It is the fact that it is being taken away. It is the fact that everything is going to be more expensive and their is no extra money taking that shortfall in incomes into account. Your argument is pointless. Try taking a percentage of someone who is earning 18k off and ask them to cope! Yes the wage is low but they have worked out how much they have to spend on what each month and the point is, take something away and it could put you into difficulty regardless of what income you are on!Click to expand...

No I know that, which is why I wasn't talking specifics. I was merely saying, from the governments perspective they are of the opinion those earning that much should be able to live without it as they have a lot of people having to live on a lot less, so I can see why they made that decision - whether rightly or wrongly made. I never said that people wouldn't struggle or it wouldn't be difficult.


----------



## FBbaby

Someone earlier wrote that a child is a privilege and not a right (or something like that) and I think a lot of it comes down to that statement. Once upon a time, benefits were introduced for those who were really struggling because of circumstances not under their control and thank god for that. The problem is that society values seem to have changed so that more and more people believe that these benefits are entitlement to their choice of life.

I was brought up believing that only got what you deserve, so if you wanted a nice lifestyle and the best for your kids, you did things in order, education first, than job, then paying your debts and THEN having children. People used to be able to be at that stage mid-20s. Nowadays, it all seems to take longer. Fair enough, you probably need to wait until your early 30s to earn a decent stable salary when it used to be in your 20s, but that doesn't change how we should prioritise our lives.

My first decent job after uni when I was mid 20s was £14K. At the time, we were not entitled to anything at all. I could have made the decision to settle and have a child then, but I knew I couldn't afford it yet. I fell pregnant at 28 and by then, I had a good job earning about £18K. Partner was earning the same. Over the years, I continued to work and my salary has gone up. I'm now about to be 40, earning £40K and yeah, I do expect to have a better lifestyle than I did when I was 25 on £14K. Surely that should be a natural aspiration to all those dedicated to their career?

Someone else here said that you should live within your means, referring to high earners. I think that is as relevant to those on lower salaries. If you can't afford to have a child yet, then WAIT. 

My ex has just announced that his girlfriend is pregnant, pretending that it wasn't planned. I had to laugh, his girlfriend has been asking my kids how they would feel about her and their dad having a baby, talking about baby names etc...for the past 6 months!!! She already has two kids and has been on full benefits ever since she separated from her ex. My ex has been in and out of jobs since we separated, and now back on JSA. Over the years, he has hardly ever paid for our two children. Yet, they considered it an entitlement to have another child, just because they want to (but too ashamed deep inside to admit it!). Yet, they are going to rely to those like me working hard, paying tons of taxes to support them, and they will be entitled to more CB whereas I will have to do without. The system is very very wrong and should be overturned so that only those in unexpected and real dire situations are entitled....and having an 'accidental' child certainly shouldn't be part of it in our day and age when you have so much choice of FREE contraceptions.


----------



## kirmal12

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


FBbaby said:


> Someone earlier wrote that a child is a privilege and not a right (or something like that) and I think a lot of it comes down to that statement. Once upon a time, benefits were introduced for those who were really struggling because of circumstances not under their control and thank god for that. The problem is that society values seem to have changed so that more and more people believe that these benefits are entitlement to their choice of life.
> 
> I was brought up believing that only got what you deserve, so if you wanted a nice lifestyle and the best for your kids, you did things in order, education first, than job, then paying your debts and THEN having children. People used to be able to be at that stage mid-20s. Nowadays, it all seems to take longer. Fair enough, you probably need to wait until your early 30s to earn a decent stable salary when it used to be in your 20s, but that doesn't change how we should prioritise our lives.
> 
> My first decent job after uni when I was mid 20s was £14K. At the time, we were not entitled to anything at all. I could have made the decision to settle and have a child then, but I knew I couldn't afford it yet. I fell pregnant at 28 and by then, I had a good job earning about £18K. Partner was earning the same. Over the years, I continued to work and my salary has gone up. I'm now about to be 40, earning £40K and yeah, I do expect to have a better lifestyle than I did when I was 25 on £14K. Surely that should be a natural aspiration to all those dedicated to their career?
> 
> Someone else here said that you should live within your means, referring to high earners. I think that is as relevant to those on lower salaries. If you can't afford to have a child yet, then WAIT.
> 
> My ex has just announced that his girlfriend is pregnant, pretending that it wasn't planned. I had to laugh, his girlfriend has been asking my kids how they would feel about her and their dad having a baby, talking about baby names etc...for the past 6 months!!! She already has two kids and has been on full benefits ever since she separated from her ex. My ex has been in and out of jobs since we separated, and now back on JSA. Over the years, he has hardly ever paid for our two children. Yet, they considered it an entitlement to have another child, just because they want to (but too ashamed deep inside to admit it!). Yet, they are going to rely to those like me working hard, paying tons of taxes to support them, and they will be entitled to more CB whereas I will have to do without. The system is very very wrong and should be overturned so that only those in unexpected and real dire situations are entitled....and having an 'accidental' child certainly shouldn't be part of it in our day and age when you have so much choice of FREE contraceptions.

:thumbup: I agree totally


----------



## AimeeM

Money is the root of all evil. We could all live without it. If we couldn't then the human race would have died out before it had even began. I could easily live with out the £20 a week as i am sure we all could but lets face it, it is nice to have it.

Some people earn less and some people earn more. I think we should all get it or no one should get it. Thats life though. It's not fair and i think we are all old enough to know this by now!

I think back and wish i had done good at school but, due to being badly bullied and it making me so scared to go to school that i just didn't go, i did rubbish but hey thats the way it goes.
I have the right to have children and a family and no bullies will take that right away from me as well as taking a lot of other things from me.

We should all just be happy with what we have and feel happy for others that they have done good for themselves and not look down on people who's lives didn't pan out the way it maybe should have!

I just wish there wasn't such a huge 'social class' devide and the world would be such a nicer place to live in.


----------



## Lucy Lu

I wonder what they are going to do with the money saved instead? If it goes to more needy families then I think the move is justified, but I'm a cynic and totally believe it will wind up being wasted on something nothing to do with the health and wellbeing of our children :nope:


----------



## gills8752

Debating about whether you need CB with regard to your earnings is pointless. Everyone earning under the "Good Wage" say 44k for example does not know and has not lived in the finances of someone who does earn the "Good Wage" where as people who do earn it - know what its like to earn the average wage. (unless by some fluke you've walked into a job paying 44k at age 16 :haha:

I think what's more important is what they are going to do to the whole benefits system in regard to getting people back into work and giving back to the public who pay into the system.

I for one would love to see the whole system scrapped and no one given cash. If you need help, you should get it in the form of them directly paying housing/council tax benefit not through the person and getting food boxes, gas/elec paid directly etc. I don't see the need for actual cash to go to the people needing it.


----------



## ClaireLouise

I also wonder that too! If we got given rent vouchers/council tax/electric/gas etc etc, then the money saved from paying that would go on things you need for your children. That way, it wouldn't be misused. Then if people wanted to spend £20 a week on fags or drink (which they are allowed to do) then they will be using their own money.

They bloody owe us anyway! All those flamin expenses they claimed back!


----------



## Foogirl

FBbaby said:


> Someone earlier wrote that a child is a privilege and not a right (or something like that) and I think a lot of it comes down to that statement. Once upon a time, benefits were introduced for those who were really struggling because of circumstances not under their control and thank god for that. The problem is that society values seem to have changed so that more and more people believe that these benefits are entitlement to their choice of life.
> 
> I was brought up believing that only got what you deserve, so if you wanted a nice lifestyle and the best for your kids, you did things in order, education first, than job, then paying your debts and THEN having children. People used to be able to be at that stage mid-20s. Nowadays, it all seems to take longer. Fair enough, you probably need to wait until your early 30s to earn a decent stable salary when it used to be in your 20s, but that doesn't change how we should prioritise our lives.
> 
> My first decent job after uni when I was mid 20s was £14K. At the time, we were not entitled to anything at all. I could have made the decision to settle and have a child then, but I knew I couldn't afford it yet. I fell pregnant at 28 and by then, I had a good job earning about £18K. Partner was earning the same. Over the years, I continued to work and my salary has gone up. I'm now about to be 40, earning £40K and yeah, I do expect to have a better lifestyle than I did when I was 25 on £14K. Surely that should be a natural aspiration to all those dedicated to their career?
> 
> Someone else here said that you should live within your means, referring to high earners. I think that is as relevant to those on lower salaries. If you can't afford to have a child yet, then WAIT.

We did the same. We waited until we were more stable financially, having spent a few years sorting out the "financial hangover" from when we had both been students. I'd have loved to have had children sooner but I didn't see the point in doing so, then expecting someone else to help me financially to bring them up. I don't need the child benefit, I can live without it (as I said it goes into Abby's savings) But I was quite pleased that despite the fact we had both worked to improve our lifestyles, the Government still gave us a little "thank you" for raising the next generation. It seems middle class families aren't the ones the governement wants to thank for that any more.

And once again they've made it more financially attractive to not be married or co-habiting when raising a family.

You are so right about changing the lifestyle. Why should we have to apologise for thinking "right, I'm earning a good wage, time to move out of the run down semi into a new built detached, and get myself a new car."

As I said, I accept we all have to do our bit for the greater good in this god awful mess, but no-one seems to care that a couple on 87k will get the benefit, a couple on 44k will get the benefit, but a different couple on the same amount wont. I just don't see how that can be justified.


----------



## cb1

I agree with FBbaby - CB should be scrapped, execpt for those families who really need it. I waited until we could afford to have children, to make sure we could provide a stable and secure home environment, and a decent standard of living. I have to say I begrudge my tax pounds paying towards other peoples kids unless they really can't survive without it.


----------



## Foogirl

cb1 said:


> I agree with FBbaby - CB should be scrapped, execpt for those families who really need it. I waited until we could afford to have children, to make sure we could provide a stable and secure home environment, and a decent standard of living. I have to say I begrudge my tax pounds paying towards other peoples kids unless they really can't survive without it.

Do you not get child benefit?


----------



## cb1

Foogirl said:


> cb1 said:
> 
> 
> I agree with FBbaby - CB should be scrapped, execpt for those families who really need it. I waited until we could afford to have children, to make sure we could provide a stable and secure home environment, and a decent standard of living. I have to say I begrudge my tax pounds paying towards other peoples kids unless they really can't survive without it.
> 
> Do you not get child benefit?Click to expand...

I won't under the new scheme.


----------



## indy and lara

I just wanted to say that it is not just the South East of the UK which is very expensive to live in. Many of our cities have ridiculous rents and house prices too. Edinburgh is just beyond silly now and most people I know have had to leave in order to have their families and afford a house. We spent time earlier this year living in Bath and I have NO idea how families live there at all!!! On the flip side, many rural areas no longer have housing at reasonable rent/ sale price due to the increasing numbers of holiday/ weekend homes. Foods/ utilities/ petrol are ridiculously expensive no matter where you live.


----------



## bathbabe

indy and lara said:


> I just wanted to say that it is not just the South East of the UK which is very expensive to live in. Many of our cities have ridiculous rents and house prices too. Edinburgh is just beyond silly now and most people I know have had to leave in order to have their families and afford a house. We spent time earlier this year living in Bath and I have NO idea how families live there at all!!! On the flip side, many rural areas no longer have housing at reasonable rent/ sale price due to the increasing numbers of holiday/ weekend homes. Foods/ utilities/ petrol are ridiculously expensive no matter where you live.

I agree, Bath is a stupidly expensive place to live! X


----------



## babyblog

FBbaby said:


> Someone earlier wrote that a child is a privilege and not a right (or something like that) and I think a lot of it comes down to that statement. Once upon a time, benefits were introduced for those who were really struggling because of circumstances not under their control and thank god for that. The problem is that society values seem to have changed so that more and more people believe that these benefits are entitlement to their choice of life.
> 
> I was brought up believing that only got what you deserve, so if you wanted a nice lifestyle and the best for your kids, you did things in order, education first, than job, then paying your debts and THEN having children. People used to be able to be at that stage mid-20s. Nowadays, it all seems to take longer. Fair enough, you probably need to wait until your early 30s to earn a decent stable salary when it used to be in your 20s, but that doesn't change how we should prioritise our lives.
> 
> My first decent job after uni when I was mid 20s was £14K. At the time, we were not entitled to anything at all. I could have made the decision to settle and have a child then, but I knew I couldn't afford it yet. I fell pregnant at 28 and by then, I had a good job earning about £18K. Partner was earning the same. Over the years, I continued to work and my salary has gone up. I'm now about to be 40, earning £40K and yeah, I do expect to have a better lifestyle than I did when I was 25 on £14K. Surely that should be a natural aspiration to all those dedicated to their career?
> 
> Someone else here said that you should live within your means, referring to high earners. I think that is as relevant to those on lower salaries. If you can't afford to have a child yet, then WAIT.
> 
> My ex has just announced that his girlfriend is pregnant, pretending that it wasn't planned. I had to laugh, his girlfriend has been asking my kids how they would feel about her and their dad having a baby, talking about baby names etc...for the past 6 months!!! She already has two kids and has been on full benefits ever since she separated from her ex. My ex has been in and out of jobs since we separated, and now back on JSA. Over the years, he has hardly ever paid for our two children. Yet, they considered it an entitlement to have another child, just because they want to (but too ashamed deep inside to admit it!). Yet, they are going to rely to those like me working hard, paying tons of taxes to support them, and they will be entitled to more CB whereas I will have to do without. The system is very very wrong and should be overturned so that only those in unexpected and real dire situations are entitled....and having an 'accidental' child certainly shouldn't be part of it in our day and age when you have so much choice of FREE contraceptions.


I agree with this too.


On another note-CB is paid to the mother, so in an abusive relationship at least she has a little money she can call her own and use to help feed/clothe herself and her children. Domestic Violence is prevalent in all walks of life, from the poorest household to the richest, so this step could have a negative impact on richer households too.


----------



## NG09

FBbaby said:


> Someone earlier wrote that a child is a privilege and not a right (or something like that) and I think a lot of it comes down to that statement. Once upon a time, benefits were introduced for those who were really struggling because of circumstances not under their control and thank god for that. The problem is that society values seem to have changed so that more and more people believe that these benefits are entitlement to their choice of life.
> 
> I was brought up believing that only got what you deserve, so if you wanted a nice lifestyle and the best for your kids, you did things in order, education first, than job, then paying your debts and THEN having children. People used to be able to be at that stage mid-20s. Nowadays, it all seems to take longer. Fair enough, you probably need to wait until your early 30s to earn a decent stable salary when it used to be in your 20s, but that doesn't change how we should prioritise our lives.
> 
> My first decent job after uni when I was mid 20s was £14K. At the time, we were not entitled to anything at all. I could have made the decision to settle and have a child then, but I knew I couldn't afford it yet. I fell pregnant at 28 and by then, I had a good job earning about £18K. Partner was earning the same. Over the years, I continued to work and my salary has gone up. I'm now about to be 40, earning £40K and yeah, I do expect to have a better lifestyle than I did when I was 25 on £14K. Surely that should be a natural aspiration to all those dedicated to their career?
> 
> Someone else here said that you should live within your means, referring to high earners. I think that is as relevant to those on lower salaries. If you can't afford to have a child yet, then WAIT.
> 
> My ex has just announced that his girlfriend is pregnant, pretending that it wasn't planned. I had to laugh, his girlfriend has been asking my kids how they would feel about her and their dad having a baby, talking about baby names etc...for the past 6 months!!! She already has two kids and has been on full benefits ever since she separated from her ex. My ex has been in and out of jobs since we separated, and now back on JSA. Over the years, he has hardly ever paid for our two children. Yet, they considered it an entitlement to have another child, just because they want to (but too ashamed deep inside to admit it!). Yet, they are going to rely to those like me working hard, paying tons of taxes to support them, and they will be entitled to more CB whereas I will have to do without. The system is very very wrong and should be overturned so that only those in unexpected and real dire situations are entitled....and having an 'accidental' child certainly shouldn't be part of it in our day and age when you have so much choice of FREE contraceptions.

:thumbup: Totally agree


----------



## faun

I might get jumped on for this but i think that it is very unfair to take away child benefits from some and let others keep it if they are going to do anything they should either scrap it completely so no one gets it or leave it as it is. 

I don't work at the moment as i decided i was going to be a SAHM until Billy goes to nursery at 3 because nearly my whole wage would of gone on childcare and travel costs and i am lucky that my hubby earns enough to live on. We could manage to survive without child benefit but its what pays for the little luxuries for the kids like trips to the zoo etc. So even though i don't need it i do appreciate it and hubby earns about £28k a year so a long way below the cut off we learnt to rein in our spending when i was pregnant as i knew we would be on one wage for a few years so it should be easy for people earning £44k+ to manage their money so they don't miss CB as they have 2/3 years to do it, it just sucks that they should have to though.


----------



## pheobe

Foogirl said:


> And to whomever it was who piously stated "that's not what it's for," I beg your pardon that is exactly what it is for. To provide for a child, whatever you think your child needs.

I think this was directed at me? If it was I'd just like to say that it cerainly wasn't intended to read as a 'pious statement' and if I caused any offence I apologise; I use my CB in the same mannor as you Foogirl I was attempting to illustrate the point that the intention behind CB is outdated and not really relevant in todays society. 

I've included a link which you might find interesting (you might not :haha:) it explains that the intention behind CB is to help provide a mother with the means to manage a budget for her childs essentials ie food & Clothes; you and I might see saving for the future as essential but lots of people aren't in a position where they can make that a priority. 

I think what I'm trying to say is that an essential isn't something that we can decide on it is what it is. You can't survive without food but you could survive if your mum & dad haven't saved a uni fund for you iykwim??? So the thought behind the benefit doesn't work imo. I'd rather receive the money back in a tax rebate or some other form and use it towards Nialls savings than be claiming a benefit which was intended to target those that really need assistance when I don't.

Make any sense????

x

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-079.pdf


**And I meant to add I totally agree the sugestion to remove the benefit in the mannor proposed is plain stupid!!


----------



## ClaireLouise

The percentage of tax you pay on your wages in general is always going to be high isnt it, even after these cuts are made, it wont lower _OUR_ taxes or NI. 

I work at an acountants and it makes me sick how _some_ millionaires use every government loophole in the book to try and not pay the high taxes on their income and "make up" their expenditure that they claim back. Maybe something should be done about them!! Then the people who need the CB wont have to go without!


----------



## loverguts

Anyone would think that CB is hundreds of pounds a month....come on, im sure the majority of people will be fine without it!


----------



## LankyDoodle

NG09 said:


> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> Someone earlier wrote that a child is a privilege and not a right (or something like that) and I think a lot of it comes down to that statement. Once upon a time, benefits were introduced for those who were really struggling because of circumstances not under their control and thank god for that. The problem is that society values seem to have changed so that more and more people believe that these benefits are entitlement to their choice of life.
> 
> I was brought up believing that only got what you deserve, so if you wanted a nice lifestyle and the best for your kids, you did things in order, education first, than job, then paying your debts and THEN having children. People used to be able to be at that stage mid-20s. Nowadays, it all seems to take longer. Fair enough, you probably need to wait until your early 30s to earn a decent stable salary when it used to be in your 20s, but that doesn't change how we should prioritise our lives.
> 
> My first decent job after uni when I was mid 20s was £14K. At the time, we were not entitled to anything at all. I could have made the decision to settle and have a child then, but I knew I couldn't afford it yet. I fell pregnant at 28 and by then, I had a good job earning about £18K. Partner was earning the same. Over the years, I continued to work and my salary has gone up. I'm now about to be 40, earning £40K and yeah, I do expect to have a better lifestyle than I did when I was 25 on £14K. Surely that should be a natural aspiration to all those dedicated to their career?
> 
> Someone else here said that you should live within your means, referring to high earners. I think that is as relevant to those on lower salaries. If you can't afford to have a child yet, then WAIT.
> 
> My ex has just announced that his girlfriend is pregnant, pretending that it wasn't planned. I had to laugh, his girlfriend has been asking my kids how they would feel about her and their dad having a baby, talking about baby names etc...for the past 6 months!!! She already has two kids and has been on full benefits ever since she separated from her ex. My ex has been in and out of jobs since we separated, and now back on JSA. Over the years, he has hardly ever paid for our two children. Yet, they considered it an entitlement to have another child, just because they want to (but too ashamed deep inside to admit it!). Yet, they are going to rely to those like me working hard, paying tons of taxes to support them, and they will be entitled to more CB whereas I will have to do without. The system is very very wrong and should be overturned so that only those in unexpected and real dire situations are entitled....and having an 'accidental' child certainly shouldn't be part of it in our day and age when you have so much choice of FREE contraceptions.
> 
> :thumbup: Totally agreeClick to expand...

I also totally agree!

People who earn high salaries, with a very few exceptions of course, DESERVE their high salaries and have worked HARD for their high salaries. You should live within your means whatever you earn, small or large salary. Child benefit was introduced as a universal benefit and should remain so in my opinion. We won't lose it under the new criteria, but I do feel sorry for those who will... they are already paying HUGE amounts in tax/NI. 44k seems like loads to a lot of people, but it's a take-home of about 2.5k a month. If the 44k earner is the sole earner in the family but that family loses the £20 a week as well as tax credits, they aren't bringing in huge amounts. You may disagree, but sorry, when you've got a mortgage/rent to pay, bills to pay out of your own pocket, a car to run or transport to pay for, mouths to feed... 2/5k is not a lot!

I nearly choked yesterday when I heard on the news that Osborne wants to cap benefit entitlement to 26k per family. FAR too high if you ask me (and it's not taxable!!). WHY on earth is ANY family entitled to more than 26k in benefits in the first place, whether they are deserving of benefits or not. Benefits are a hardship fund, not a lifestyle choice (or should be). Absolutely pathetic!


----------



## Gingerspice

Lucy Lu said:


> I wonder what they are going to do with the money saved instead? If it goes to more needy families then I think the move is justified, but I'm a cynic and totally believe it will wind up being wasted on something nothing to do with the health and wellbeing of our children :nope:

The money 'saved' won't be saved, and isn't going to anyone else. It is (well apparently anyway) going to pay off the massive, massive debt that this country is in. The idea is we all have to make cuts to help pay back to the other countries and loans we owe as a whole country, so everybody will end up losing out in some way as we all have to pay for the way that the Labour government spent masses over the amount they actually had coming in from our taxes. 

If you want to blame anyone, blame them for not being able to realise that money given out cannot be more than money coming in. Everybody in this country effectively each has a massive debt, I don't know what the exact figure is, but I seem to recall they estimate that effectively we each have a debt (each person of all ages) of about £3000. That pretty much means, assuming an 'average' family of 4, the government needs to get £12,000 from that family. *Thats extra money on top of the 'noral' amount of money they need frm each person for the day to day running of this country*. Now in my mind I'd rather they did it by taking £20 a week away over sometime than demanding that kind of money from each family in bigger chunks or in one go. And yes, unfortunately those that are seen as 'rich' are more likely to have to pay other peoples shares back for those that are apparently 'poor' and cannot pay it back themselves.

We have to all take responsibility for our country, so paying off that debt as quick as possible in order to save extra money being added from the interest rates on those loans really should be a collective aim. And yes I know that's an ideal, but if no-one takes pride and responsibility in their communities and this country and wants to try to build it back into something then its not surprising it falling to pieces as badly as it is at the moment.


----------



## indy and lara

I just wonder when some of us will be able to stop paying for other people's mistakes? Here's a really radical idea- why don't we stop paying bonuses to those in the state supported banks? If public sector workers have to take pay cuts/ freeze then why are some state supported and bailed out banks not following suit?


----------



## Gingerspice

indy and lara said:


> I just wonder when some of us will be able to stop paying for other people's mistakes? Here's a really radical idea- why don't we stop paying bonuses to those in the state supported banks? If public sector workers have to take pay cuts/ freeze then why are some state supported and bailed out banks not following suit?

I heard today that they're paying out on average £70,000 bonuses to each of the bankers.....so much for Government saying they'd all get nothing until the country was fixed!


----------



## indy and lara

Gingerspice said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> I just wonder when some of us will be able to stop paying for other people's mistakes? Here's a really radical idea- why don't we stop paying bonuses to those in the state supported banks? If public sector workers have to take pay cuts/ freeze then why are some state supported and bailed out banks not following suit?
> 
> I heard today that they're paying out on average £70,000 bonuses to each of the bankers.....so much for Government saying they'd all get nothing until the country was fixed!Click to expand...

Indeed. 

Interesting that it takes too much money to organise a CB system whereby family incomes can be considered. However, bonus payments to bankers who work for bailed out instututions can carry on. Most private sector workers (DH included) have not received bonuses/ profit related pay for 2 years now as companies are not making money but banks who were propped up by the State have not applied this common sense step.


----------



## Louise N

Why aren't they doing the assessment on _household_ income rather than the income of one person? Everything else I can think of is done on household income.

It just doesn't make sense that a family with 1 earner earning £44k would lose out when the house next door could have 2 earners on £30k each and still get it? 

Regardless of who's bank account the CB goes in to - both partners are raising the family _together._

Wonder what will be next?


----------



## bubbles123

Child benefit is my only income. Thankfully my hubby earns under £44k so I will keep it or else I would be very poor as almost all of hubby's income goes on paying the bills. I have no problem with capping it, but if it was up to me I would cap it at say £50k income per household. I think they have only done the if either one of you is a higher rate tax payer because it's easier for the inland revenue to administer. It is unfair for sahm as child benefit maybe the only money they get of their own.


----------



## jenny82

As a kinda OT - does no one else still find it wierd to et CB and CTC into their bank accounts?

I never got money 'for free' and I still find it odd to see that money go in every month! I even forget about it most months and then wonder why I'm £80 up! 

Better not get too used to it I suppose LOL


----------



## bubbles123

jenny82 said:


> As a kinda OT - does no one else still find it wierd to et CB and CTC into their bank accounts?
> 
> I never got money 'for free' and I still find it odd to see that money go in every month! I even forget about it most months and then wonder why I'm £80 up!
> 
> Better not get too used to it I suppose LOL


It does seem weird. But I like to think that's it's just me getting back a bit of the tax that I've paid over the years. Like SMP - Your work claims that back from the Inland Revenue so it's like you get a bit of your tax back. :winkwink:


----------



## LankyDoodle

I agree with Bubbles. I find it weird because I've always worked, even in jobs I am way overqualified for when I've been unable to find work suited to my skills and knowledge (I have a postgrad degree!), so I've never received a penny of help from anyone. So to see 81 ChB and 88 CTC go in every 4 weeks, just seems weird. Best not get too used to it as my CTC will be swiped away soon!


----------



## chele

I'll never understand this.

It's just wrong to discriminate just because someone can be bothered to get off their arse and do well for themselves.


----------



## LankyDoodle

Yep, totally! I never understand all this bitterness about people earning what they consider to be high wages. I say good luck to them if they have the motivation, determination and aspiration to do well. It doesn't take away from the fact that CB was a universal benefit for CHILDREN not for the people having them. I don't blame the better off for emigrating etc: put into a system and then face bitterness for having the cheek to expect ANYTHING, just a token amount, back out. Quite possibly, £20 wouldn't be a big amount to most of the people who won't get it any longer, but there are several things that are unfair about this, the main one being the way it is being implemented. 

I hate this 'we deserve it more because we earn less and people who have that salary don't even need it' attitude. Who is anyone to say what another person can and cannot afford, when for starters, if you have to pay all your bills yourself and pay your rent yourself, it doesn't go very far!

I agree with someone else who said benefits should go down to an absolute skeleton. You get enough to keep a modest home, pay absolute vital bills and buy healthy, nutritious meals. That then means that people in dire need of help are getting it for what is important - a roof, warmth, food - and the rest of us aren't propping up a system that supports the CHOSEN lifestyles of so many.


----------



## Tasha

Some of the way things are worded on this thread arent very nice.

Any way what I dont understand is the 'it will cost too much to means test it properly' thing, the questions and information needed would be just the same as child tax credits, so why not use the information provided there to decide who gets it and who doesnt? That would be fairer (IMO), and save more money as that is what this is about, I don't know, they cynic in me thinks the real reason for not means testing (as they already have the information available to them) is to do with votes.


----------



## bubbles123

The real problem in the UK is that wages are too low and the cost of living is too high (especially the ridiculously high cost of housing). But no government (especially the Tories) will do anything about that - that would be interfering in the 'free market'. We should all be able to live without benefits on our wages alone. But that's just not possible for many people in the UK. My hubby needed a masters degree to get his job and gets £25k maximum salary. I needed a degree and get £14k. It's just not enough to meet the high cost of living.


----------



## Cheryl xx

Wow what a thread lol

I think it should be left for everybody xx


----------



## bambino156

chele said:


> I'll never understand this.
> 
> It's just wrong to discriminate just because someone can be bothered to get off their arse and do well for themselves.

I agree 100%! 
What would happen if nobody ever wanted to better themselves and work their way up the career ladder? What if everyone decided they didn't want to be a high rate tax payer and were happy to just make ends meet - there wouldn't be any money in the kitty for any benefits for anyone then!


----------



## bloodbinds

bambino156 said:


> chele said:
> 
> 
> I'll never understand this.
> 
> It's just wrong to discriminate just because someone can be bothered to get off their arse and do well for themselves.
> 
> I agree 100%!
> What would happen if nobody ever wanted to better themselves and work their way up the career ladder? What if everyone decided they didn't want to be a high rate tax payer and were happy to just make ends meet - there wouldn't be any money in the kitty for any benefits for anyone then!Click to expand...


Oi!

I am quite happy living off my benefits thank you very much!
It pays for my big tv and my drugs on the weekends. Why would i want to work?!


----------



## buttons1

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and I never usually comment on these types of thread but I don't think some peoples comments on here are put very nicely. 



chele said:


> I'll never understand this.
> 
> It's just wrong to discriminate just because someone can be bothered to get off their arse and do well for themselves.

Yes fair play to people that have strived and done well securing them a very nice salary but I don't think u can say other people can't be bothered to get off their arse and do well in this same way. Some careers just aren't that well paid no matter how hard you work. 

Personally I think 44k is a lot of money and when looking at that against £80 a month it doesn't seem like too much to lose out on. Like I said I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion but some of these opinions are coming across a bit judgemental


----------



## emsiee

LankyDoodle said:


> NG09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBbaby said:
> 
> 
> Someone earlier wrote that a child is a privilege and not a right (or something like that) and I think a lot of it comes down to that statement. Once upon a time, benefits were introduced for those who were really struggling because of circumstances not under their control and thank god for that. The problem is that society values seem to have changed so that more and more people believe that these benefits are entitlement to their choice of life.
> 
> I was brought up believing that only got what you deserve, so if you wanted a nice lifestyle and the best for your kids, you did things in order, education first, than job, then paying your debts and THEN having children. People used to be able to be at that stage mid-20s. Nowadays, it all seems to take longer. Fair enough, you probably need to wait until your early 30s to earn a decent stable salary when it used to be in your 20s, but that doesn't change how we should prioritise our lives.
> 
> My first decent job after uni when I was mid 20s was £14K. At the time, we were not entitled to anything at all. I could have made the decision to settle and have a child then, but I knew I couldn't afford it yet. I fell pregnant at 28 and by then, I had a good job earning about £18K. Partner was earning the same. Over the years, I continued to work and my salary has gone up. I'm now about to be 40, earning £40K and yeah, I do expect to have a better lifestyle than I did when I was 25 on £14K. Surely that should be a natural aspiration to all those dedicated to their career?
> 
> Someone else here said that you should live within your means, referring to high earners. I think that is as relevant to those on lower salaries. If you can't afford to have a child yet, then WAIT.
> 
> My ex has just announced that his girlfriend is pregnant, pretending that it wasn't planned. I had to laugh, his girlfriend has been asking my kids how they would feel about her and their dad having a baby, talking about baby names etc...for the past 6 months!!! She already has two kids and has been on full benefits ever since she separated from her ex. My ex has been in and out of jobs since we separated, and now back on JSA. Over the years, he has hardly ever paid for our two children. Yet, they considered it an entitlement to have another child, just because they want to (but too ashamed deep inside to admit it!). Yet, they are going to rely to those like me working hard, paying tons of taxes to support them, and they will be entitled to more CB whereas I will have to do without. The system is very very wrong and should be overturned so that only those in unexpected and real dire situations are entitled....and having an 'accidental' child certainly shouldn't be part of it in our day and age when you have so much choice of FREE contraceptions.
> 
> :thumbup: Totally agreeClick to expand...
> 
> I also totally agree!
> 
> 
> I nearly choked yesterday when I heard on the news that Osborne wants to cap benefit entitlement to 26k per family. FAR too high if you ask me (and it's not taxable!!). WHY on earth is ANY family entitled to more than 26k in benefits in the first place, whether they are deserving of benefits or not. Benefits are a hardship fund, not a lifestyle choice (or should be). Absolutely pathetic!Click to expand...

Totally agree. The system is a farce.


----------



## Foogirl

Tasha said:


> Any way what I dont understand is the 'it will cost too much to means test it properly' thing, the questions and information needed would be just the same as child tax credits, so why not use the information provided there to decide who gets it and who doesnt? That would be fairer (IMO), and save more money as that is what this is about, I don't know, they cynic in me thinks the real reason for not means testing (as they already have the information available to them) is to do with votes.

This is exactly what I thought. Do away with it altogether and add it as a credit to those who get CTC. Anyone on CTC, no matter at what level gets £20.30 added to their money. Easy peasy. If they did that, I'd lose it but I'd feel a whole lot better about it as it is a much, much fairer way to do it.

I do think I've come up with one reason the government has done it this way and it has nothing to do with fairness, costs etc. I think it is to do with calculating how much they will save and selling it to the people. They can say "we are going to do this and it will save £1billion" Easy for them to calculate what it can save because all they have to do is say to the tax office "how many higher tax rate people are there who have children" multiply that by the benefit and voila! - there's your figure. It would take a lot more looking into, to find out how many are married to each other, co-habiting, how many are on less than 44k total, how many are nearly higher rate tax payers and living together etc etc.


----------



## MrsGlitz

Well they're now on about looking into re-instating married couple's tax allowance to give some relief to some couples.


----------



## xolily

I haven't read the whole thread but feel the need to reply to the whole

"Do people really only work 16 hours so they're entitled to most benefits.. its sad that people think like that!!"

well, excuse me! I could work 30+ hours a week, barely see my child, pay for someone else to look after her AND and end up with less money.. hardly takes an expert to work out which option i'm going to choose.


----------



## bathbabe

MrsGlitz said:


> Well they're now on about looking into re-instating married couple's tax allowance to give some relief to some couples.

Whats married couples tax allowance? X


----------



## bathbabe

xolily said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but feel the need to reply to the whole
> 
> "Do people really only work 16 hours so they're entitled to most benefits.. its sad that people think like that!!"
> 
> well, excuse me! I could work 30+ hours a week, barely see my child, pay for someone else to look after her AND and end up with less money.. hardly takes an expert to work out which option i'm going to choose.

And i have to say i agree. To me, its more important to spend quality time with my child. Money comes after my child. X


----------



## LankyDoodle

It is a tax relief that used to be given to married couples who both paid tax. It was taken off the higher earner's tax bill. They may implement it differently now, though.


----------



## WW1

bathbabe said:


> MrsGlitz said:
> 
> 
> Well they're now on about looking into re-instating married couple's tax allowance to give some relief to some couples.
> 
> Whats married couples tax allowance? XClick to expand...

The original amount was going to be a benefit of about £150 per year. I remember chuckling when it was first mentioned as the average cost of a wedding is about £15 000. Therefore, it would only take 100 years to pay for the wedding using the tax break!!


----------



## CocoaOne

Apparently the government will save 1 billion by cutting the CB as planned. But will lose 1.6 billion in the new married tax allowance they hope will be running by 2015

Crazy.


----------



## MrsGlitz

WW1 said:


> bathbabe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsGlitz said:
> 
> 
> Well they're now on about looking into re-instating married couple's tax allowance to give some relief to some couples.
> 
> Whats married couples tax allowance? XClick to expand...
> 
> The original amount was going to be a benefit of about £150 per year. I remember chuckling when it was first mentioned as the average cost of a wedding is about £15 000. Therefore, it would only take 100 years to pay for the wedding using the tax break!!Click to expand...

I laughed at the original amount quoted but the impression I've got is that it's going to be a lot higher so that those just above the threshold don't lose out. Who knows?!


----------



## MrsGlitz

CocoaOne said:


> Apparently the government will save 1 billion by cutting the CB as planned. But will lose 1.6 billion in the new married tax allowance they hope will be running by 2015
> 
> Crazy.

Really?! :dohh:


----------



## CocoaOne

I've read that the original £150 will stand but the higher earner can transfer an extra £750 to the lower earner. Not entirely sure but it sounds like it will be around £1000. 

I also read that the Tories haven't ruled put reducing the CB age from 18/19 to 16 or possibly lower.


----------



## FBbaby

xolily said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but feel the need to reply to the whole
> 
> "Do people really only work 16 hours so they're entitled to most benefits.. its sad that people think like that!!"
> 
> well, excuse me! I could work 30+ hours a week, barely see my child, pay for someone else to look after her AND and end up with less money.. hardly takes an expert to work out which option i'm going to choose.

You might end up with less money NOW, but then see your salary go up so that in 5, 10 years time, you might be much better off without needing benefits. This attitude of looking at instant gratification rather than considering the whole picture is according to me one of the problems we are currently facing. Sometimes you have to work hard now to only receive benefits later, and this is the reason why a number of us are cross with this latest cut, because we did make sacrifices in the past expecting to see the rewards later, yet it seems what we have become is easy targets to put money back into the system that supports those who only look at what rewards they can benefits from instantly.

I 'barely' saw my children when they were growing up but I never considered for a second that going on benefits was a choice. Of course I would have loved to spend more time with them, but it just wasn't option since their dad and I couldn't provide for them without me working. I have no regrets though. They are very well adjusted children with good self-esteem, who have learnt to be independent and work hard. Our times together have always been restricted, but that has only encouraged us to make it more special. I can now provide for them as I wish and we can enjoy things that I probably wouldn't have been able to give them had I not continued to dedicate myself to my career. Most importantly, I am pleased they are growing up understanding the values of hard work, sacrifices and compromises. I just hope they won't be victms of a growing goverment that indeed encourages people to be better off not working.


----------



## FBbaby

Foogirl said:


> [I do think I've come up with one reason the government has done it this way and it has nothing to do with fairness, costs etc. I think it is to do with calculating how much they will save and selling it to the people. They can say "we are going to do this and it will save £1billion" Easy for them to calculate what it can save because all they have to do is say to the tax office "how many higher tax rate people are there who have children" multiply that by the benefit and voila! - there's your figure. It would take a lot more looking into, to find out how many are married to each other, co-habiting, how many are on less than 44k total, how many are nearly higher rate tax payers and living together etc etc.

I think you are spot on :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## LankyDoodle

FBbaby said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread but feel the need to reply to the whole
> 
> "Do people really only work 16 hours so they're entitled to most benefits.. its sad that people think like that!!"
> 
> well, excuse me! I could work 30+ hours a week, barely see my child, pay for someone else to look after her AND and end up with less money.. hardly takes an expert to work out which option i'm going to choose.
> 
> You might end up with less money NOW, but then see your salary go up so that in 5, 10 years time, you might be much better off without needing benefits. This attitude of looking at instant gratification rather than considering the whole picture is according to me one of the problems we are currently facing. Sometimes you have to work hard now to only receive benefits later, and this is the reason why a number of us are cross with this latest cut, because we did make sacrifices in the past expecting to see the rewards later, yet it seems what we have become is easy targets to put money back into the system that supports those who only look at what rewards they can benefits from instantly.
> 
> I 'barely' saw my children when they were growing up but I never considered for a second that going on benefits was a choice. Of course I would have loved to spend more time with them, but it just wasn't option since their dad and I couldn't provide for them without me working. I have no regrets though. They are very well adjusted children with good self-esteem, who have learnt to be independent and work hard. Our times together have always been restricted, but that has only encouraged us to make it more special. I can now provide for them as I wish and we can enjoy things that I probably wouldn't have been able to give them had I not continued to dedicate myself to my career. Most importantly, I am pleased they are growing up understanding the values of hard work, sacrifices and compromises. I just hope they won't be victms of a growing goverment that indeed encourages people to be better off not working.Click to expand...

I like you! You seem to have my ethic. I'm 27 and I hope in 15 years time my ethic pays off for me and my family like it has for you. :thumbup:


----------



## aob1013

FBbaby said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread but feel the need to reply to the whole
> 
> "Do people really only work 16 hours so they're entitled to most benefits.. its sad that people think like that!!"
> 
> well, excuse me! I could work 30+ hours a week, barely see my child, pay for someone else to look after her AND and end up with less money.. hardly takes an expert to work out which option i'm going to choose.
> 
> You might end up with less money NOW, but then see your salary go up so that in 5, 10 years time, you might be much better off without needing benefits. This attitude of looking at instant gratification rather than considering the whole picture is according to me one of the problems we are currently facing. Sometimes you have to work hard now to only receive benefits later, and this is the reason why a number of us are cross with this latest cut, because we did make sacrifices in the past expecting to see the rewards later, yet it seems what we have become is easy targets to put money back into the system that supports those who only look at what rewards they can benefits from instantly.
> 
> I 'barely' saw my children when they were growing up but I never considered for a second that going on benefits was a choice. Of course I would have loved to spend more time with them, but it just wasn't option since their dad and I couldn't provide for them without me working. I have no regrets though. They are very well adjusted children with good self-esteem, who have learnt to be independent and work hard. Our times together have always been restricted, but that has only encouraged us to make it more special. I can now provide for them as I wish and we can enjoy things that I probably wouldn't have been able to give them had I not continued to dedicate myself to my career. Most importantly, I am pleased they are growing up understanding the values of hard work, sacrifices and compromises. I just hope they won't be victms of a growing goverment that indeed encourages people to be better off not working.Click to expand...

Well said! Unfortunately this is the way of thinking this country needs to erase..


----------



## emsiee

CocoaOne said:


> I also read that the Tories haven't ruled put reducing the CB age from 18/19 to 16 or possibly lower.

I think that would be a good idea..Once they reach 16..I dont think they should be classed as a dependant anymore, whether they are in full time education or not. They should also cut the child tax credit too once they reach 16..


----------



## xolily

if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."

i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:


----------



## pheobe

FBbaby said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread but feel the need to reply to the whole
> 
> "Do people really only work 16 hours so they're entitled to most benefits.. its sad that people think like that!!"
> 
> well, excuse me! I could work 30+ hours a week, barely see my child, pay for someone else to look after her AND and end up with less money.. hardly takes an expert to work out which option i'm going to choose.
> 
> You might end up with less money NOW, but then see your salary go up so that in 5, 10 years time, you might be much better off without needing benefits. This attitude of looking at instant gratification rather than considering the whole picture is according to me one of the problems we are currently facing. Sometimes you have to work hard now to only receive benefits later, and this is the reason why a number of us are cross with this latest cut, because we did make sacrifices in the past expecting to see the rewards later, yet it seems what we have become is easy targets to put money back into the system that supports those who only look at what rewards they can benefits from instantly.
> 
> I 'barely' saw my children when they were growing up but I never considered for a second that going on benefits was a choice. Of course I would have loved to spend more time with them, but it just wasn't option since their dad and I couldn't provide for them without me working. I have no regrets though. They are very well adjusted children with good self-esteem, who have learnt to be independent and work hard. Our times together have always been restricted, but that has only encouraged us to make it more special. I can now provide for them as I wish and we can enjoy things that I probably wouldn't have been able to give them had I not continued to dedicate myself to my career. Most importantly, I am pleased they are growing up understanding the values of hard work, sacrifices and compromises. I just hope they won't be victms of a growing goverment that indeed encourages people to be better off not working.Click to expand...


:thumbup:

I 100% agree. I cannot fathom why in the world our benefit system is set up in a mannor which people can benefit from working less?!?!?!? 

Going to work is a 'decision'???...the entire ethic of our country is wrong, going to work is what you do - unless you are financially able to do so without assistance from the people who do work and pay taxes.


----------



## Natasha2605

I don't think benefits should be used to fund people staying at home with the children. If they can't afford to do so then they should work. Why should I pay taxes and see less of my child for somebody else to spend my taxes staying home with THEIR child. That's the problem in this country... people know that if they don't want to work then the govn will pay them not too. Whereas the more I work the less help I get... something not right there : /

Wish I earnt £40000 per year............. 

*goes off to dream*

xx


----------



## bloodbinds

FBbaby said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread but feel the need to reply to the whole
> 
> "Do people really only work 16 hours so they're entitled to most benefits.. its sad that people think like that!!"
> 
> well, excuse me! I could work 30+ hours a week, barely see my child, pay for someone else to look after her AND and end up with less money.. hardly takes an expert to work out which option i'm going to choose.
> 
> You might end up with less money NOW, but then see your salary go up so that in 5, 10 years time, you might be much better off without needing benefits. This attitude of looking at instant gratification rather than considering the whole picture is according to me one of the problems we are currently facing. Sometimes you have to work hard now to only receive benefits later, and this is the reason why a number of us are cross with this latest cut, because we did make sacrifices in the past expecting to see the rewards later, yet it seems what we have become is easy targets to put money back into the system that supports those who only look at what rewards they can benefits from instantly.
> 
> I 'barely' saw my children when they were growing up but I never considered for a second that going on benefits was a choice. Of course I would have loved to spend more time with them, but it just wasn't option since their dad and I couldn't provide for them without me working. I have no regrets though. They are very well adjusted children with good self-esteem, who have learnt to be independent and work hard. Our times together have always been restricted, but that has only encouraged us to make it more special. I can now provide for them as I wish and we can enjoy things that I probably wouldn't have been able to give them had I not continued to dedicate myself to my career. Most importantly, I am pleased they are growing up understanding the values of hard work, sacrifices and compromises. I just hope they won't be victms of a growing goverment that indeed encourages people to be better off not working.Click to expand...


Well that is great... for you.

I, however, plan to spent as much time with my daughter as i can. I would be getting a lot more if i worked full-time, but we make do on little money, because i would rather spend my time with her. She will only be this little and adorable once! Lol. And when she goes to school i will start working full time (maybe before that) but there is plenty of time for that. I am only young, i have the rest of my life to work hard and get to a place where i am financially stable without benefits. I have years and years for that. But my baby is already growing up so fast, it already upsets me greatly that i have to put her in nursery for half of the day! I am the only parent she has, so i'd like to be there for her as much as i can.

If wanting to spend more time with my daughter makes me a benefit grabbing scum-bag, then so be it. Rather benefit scum who has a close relationship with her daughter, than a work obsessed money rich woman who missed her daughters first steps.

Do you get where i am coming from at all?


----------



## cb1

xolily said:


> if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."
> 
> i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:

If you can only do it with government handouts then you can't afford it IMO. Why should the money I pay in tax pay for you to spend time with your kids, when I don't get to see mine because I'm out working? 

This contry has massive debts and we all need to do our bit, we all chose to have children, we should all be able to take financial responsibility for them!


----------



## bloodbinds

cb1 said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."
> 
> i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:
> 
> If you can only do it with government handouts then you can't afford it IMO. Why should the money I pay in tax pay for you to spend time with your kids, when I don't get to see mine because I'm out working?
> 
> This contry has massive debts and we all need to do our bit, we all chose to have children, we should all be able to take financial responsibility for them!Click to expand...

When the goverment stops handing us money for spending time with our kids, then we will have to find other options, such as working full time. But while the option is there for us to work part time and get benefits then i don't see why we shouldn't accept it?

Also, personally, I breastfeed Bella and can only work part time otherwise she would miss too many feeds, and couldn't find a full time job anyway! So it's not all about us just wanting to spend time at home with our kids (though it's a big advantage!)

Also, this shouldn't turn into an Us vs Them arguement.

Some people have benefits, they are there because we need them. Some people are lucky enough not to need benefits. Good for you. One day i'll be one of those people, and i won't complain, as i know the money i'm paying in tax is going towards those people who need the benefits, just like i did once. God forbid the day that any of _you _need to depend on benefits.


----------



## cb1

I don't understand this - are you saying you need benifits, or because benfits give you the option of only working part time then that's the choice you've made? I'm all in favour of a benifit system for those who have no other options, but not one that can be exploited by people who make a choice to work pt and claim rather than taking a ft job and paying their way.

I'm also breastfeeding, it's something that I've worked into my return to work plan, and it won't stop me working full time.


----------



## I<3paul

If your other half earns 44k why do you need £20 a week? The country can't afford it anymore and iv heard it would cost more to make it on household incomes so they have to start somewhere. X


----------



## bloodbinds

cb1 said:


> I don't understand this - are you saying you need benifits, or because benfits give you the option of only working part time then that's the choice you've made? I'm all in favour of a benifit system for those who have no other options, but not one that can be exploited by people who make a choice to work pt and claim rather than taking a ft job and paying their way.
> 
> I'm also breastfeeding, it's something that I've worked into my return to work plan, and it won't stop me working full time.


Good for you - how did you do it?! Lol. Bella has refused a bottle from 3 months. And though now she will take a cup, she won't take milk from it. She is a right little booby monster. So i had to plan my work around what is best for her.
I had to work part time to accomodate her. She is a slow weight gain and is currently (and has been for some time) the size of a 5 month old, though she will be 11 months in a couple of days. So dropping breast feeds was not an option.

Benefits gave me the option of having a happy and healthy baby. If we didn't have benefits i don't know what i'd do :shrug: Because if i worked full time she would have to go into nursery full time which costs more than i earn. So would be more beneficial to me not to work at all. But if i didn't work, how would i live? Where would i live? On the street? I'm not lucky enough to have a OH who gives a shit about us so i would be screwed. So screwed.

So yes, i do _need _benefits. Without them i would of had to give my daughter up for adoption. Or if i kept her we would be living on the streets :shrug:

So don't look your down your nose at me because i have to use benefits or because i only work part-time. It's very unfair, especially when you don't know or understand people's situation.


----------



## cb1

I<3paul said:


> If your other half earns 44k why do you need £20 a week? The country can't afford it anymore and iv heard it would cost more to make it on household incomes so they have to start somewhere. X

If you have a joint income of 86k surely you need it even less? Hardly fair is it... As CTC are already means tested how is this so difficult? As I've said before it should be scrapped completely, and then given as part of the benifit system only to those who really can't live without it.


----------



## moomoo

xolily said:


> if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."
> 
> i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:

I'd have to work an extra day if I worked one hour over 16 to make up the time. An extra day away from my baby for nothing? Anyone would do the same in the same situation so I don't know why everyones got on their high horse about it!!!?

Did you see my post xolily? Was very similar to yours. X


----------



## cb1

bloodbinds said:


> cb1 said:
> 
> 
> I don't understand this - are you saying you need benifits, or because benfits give you the option of only working part time then that's the choice you've made? I'm all in favour of a benifit system for those who have no other options, but not one that can be exploited by people who make a choice to work pt and claim rather than taking a ft job and paying their way.
> 
> I'm also breastfeeding, it's something that I've worked into my return to work plan, and it won't stop me working full time.
> 
> 
> Good for you - how did you do it?! Lol. Bella has refused a bottle from 3 months. And though now she will take a cup, she won't take milk from it. She is a right little booby monster. So i had to plan my work around what is best for her.
> I had to work part time to accomodate her. She is a slow weight gain and is currently (and has been for some time) the size of a 5 month old, though she will be 11 months in a couple of days. So dropping breast feeds was not an option..Click to expand...

It's been hard work, but I knew from the start we had to do it. Initially he wouldn't take a bottle, but luckily after trying several different makes we found one he was happy with (MAM ones). The biggest problem I've had is expressing, I can express from my right breast, but really struggled with my left one - when I first started trying I used to sit there in tears with the breast pump! Eventually I changed from a tommee tippee to a Medela swing which help, and then used the local breastfeeding support group to get their help (they gave me a different size funnel which has helped, although it's still not perfect...) So it's been a struggle, but I don't have a choice so I need to make it work.



bloodbinds said:


> Benefits gave me the option of having a happy and healthy baby. If we didn't have benefits i don't know what i'd do :shrug: Because if i worked full time she would have to go into nursery full time which costs more than i earn. So would be more beneficial to me not to work at all. But if i didn't work, how would i live? Where would i live? On the street? I'm not lucky enough to have a OH who gives a shit about us so i would be screwed. So screwed.
> 
> So yes, i do _need _benefits. Without them i would of had to give my daughter up for adoption. Or if i kept her we would be living on the streets :shrug:
> 
> So don't look your down your nose at me because i have to use benefits or because i only work part-time. It's very unfair, especially when you don't know or understand people's situation.


When did I look down my nose at you? I've clearly said from the start that benifits should be there for people who need them. One of your earlier comments made it sound like you were making a lifestyle choice, which is why I asked if you needed them or if working part time was a choice you'd made. I stand by what I've said about people chosing to work pt and take benifits to spend more time at home with their child - if they can't afford the life they want (time with kids) then they shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for it IMO!


----------



## katystwogirls

Natasha2605 said:


> I don't think benefits should be used to fund people staying at home with the children. If they can't afford to do so then they should work. *Why should I pay taxes and see less of my child for somebody else to spend my taxes staying home with THEIR child.* That's the problem in this country... people know that if they don't want to work then the govn will pay them not too. Whereas the more I work the less help I get... something not right there : /
> 
> Wish I earnt £40000 per year.............
> 
> *goes off to dream*
> 
> xx

This a bad attitiude to have.

My husband earns the threshold, I look after our children. That is the way we have chosen to do things as it is best for them, and for us.

Yes, we all have to pull our weight but our single-earner household at £44k takes home *14%* less than a double-earner household with the same income. Losing child benefit amounts to a pre-tax salary pay cut of £3000 or 7%. Anybody else being asked to lose 7% of their income? How would that effect your family? Just think about it for a minute.

*Why should I pay taxes and see less of my child for somebody else to spend my taxes staying home with THEIR child.*

My husband pays £12,000 in tax. We only claim chld benefit at £1800. Do the maths. Who is paying who?

The sense of entitlement seems to be coming from those who claim everything under the sun, not those who are losing CB. The welfare state is for the benefit of all and now we have two tiers - those who pay in and those who take out.

A century ago, any "benefit" would have been called "charity". Maybe if it was still called this, some would be more grateful to those who work hard and pay the high taxes that fund "their" child benefits and tax credits and whatever else they're entitled to.

And remember we're talking about high earning families here - not the ones who "shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them". The issue is the principle of the matter and the unfairness of the system, yet all we hear is "well I would love to earn that but don't" and "they can afford to lose it". As mums we should stick together not be spiteful because it is affecting mothers who have more money for goodness sake... grow up!


----------



## cb1

moomoo said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."
> 
> i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:
> 
> I'd have to work an extra day if I worked one hour over 16 to make up the time. An extra day away from my baby for nothing? Anyone would do the same in the same situation so I don't know why everyones got on their high horse about it!!!?
> 
> Did you see my post xolily? Was very similar to yours. XClick to expand...

Ok, lets make a deal then... you work your 16 hours, claim benifits from our financially crippled government, and get to see your LO take their first steps, say their first words, etc and I'll work 5 days a week, not spend valuable time with my LO, take nothing back from the govenment, and pay my higher rate taxes which go into the pot that helps fund your lifestyle choice, and not "get on my high horse" about it... Fair?


----------



## pheobe

bloodbinds said:


> Benefits gave me the option of having a happy and healthy baby. If we didn't have benefits i don't know what i'd do :shrug: Because if i worked full time she would have to go into nursery full time which costs more than i earn. So would be more beneficial to me not to work at all. But if i didn't work, how would i live? Where would i live? On the street? I'm not lucky enough to have a OH who gives a shit about us so i would be screwed. So screwed.
> 
> 
> This is the difference between needing to live on benefits and making the decision to live on benefits hun, which is the issue here. I don't think (as someone who understands why you and bella are where you are) that anyone on here would have an issue with you claiming benefits :flower:
> 
> When Andy was made redundant a week after Niall was born he claimed JSA and did so until he got back into work in March. It was a lifeline to us and I am very proud to live in a country where I pay into a system which supports people when they need it including me
> 
> As for the other poster here who asked why people get on their high horse after a post which clearly detailed a DECISION to work lower hours for more benefits.....people have an issue because our principles and morals send us to work not the fact that we wouldn't want to spend that time with our child. It becomes an issue that is deeply embeded into who you are as a person. Some people think it acceptable to DECIDE to live on benefits in order to live the lifestyle you want - others do not.Click to expand...


----------



## cb1

pheobe said:


> bloodbinds said:
> 
> 
> Benefits gave me the option of having a happy and healthy baby. If we didn't have benefits i don't know what i'd do :shrug: Because if i worked full time she would have to go into nursery full time which costs more than i earn. So would be more beneficial to me not to work at all. But if i didn't work, how would i live? Where would i live? On the street? I'm not lucky enough to have a OH who gives a shit about us so i would be screwed. So screwed.
> 
> 
> This is the difference between needing to live on benefits and making the decision to live on benefits hun, which is the issue here. I don't think (as someone who understands why you and bella are where you are) that anyone on here would have an issue with you claiming benefits :flower:
> 
> When Andy was made redundant a week after Niall was born he claimed JSA and did so until he got back into work in March. It was a lifeline to us and I am very proud to live in a country where I pay into a system which supports people when they need it including me
> 
> As for the other poster here who asked why people get on their high horse after a post which clearly detailed a DECISION to work lower hours for more benefits.....people have an issue because our principles and morals send us to work not the fact that we wouldn't want to spend that time with our child. It becomes an issue that is deeply embeded into who you are as a person. Some people think it acceptable to DECIDE to live on benefits in order to live the lifestyle you want - others do not.
> 
> Thanks - you've managed to say exactly what I was trying to say! Benifits should be there for people who need them, but not a lifestyle choice for those who want to say at home.Click to expand...Click to expand...


----------



## indy and lara

I do understand why people have chosen to stay at home with their child. I am a SAHM so I know how great it is to be at home. But if you are not doing it without claiming benefits then you can't afford to do it. Effectively you are staying at home and others who are working are paying for you to stay at home. Many of those who are paying for you to stay at home are leaving their LOs at home or in Nursery.

As the gov have decided to take CB away from our household we are now paying our taxes and getting NOTHING back in return. (aside obviously from NHS, etc) I have read lots of posters saying that as we have an income over £44k we don't need it and why should lower income households subsidise people like me? But someone how it seems to be overlooked that it is my DH's 40% tax band which is subsidising many other people's choice not to work or work PT. Not only that, we are paying for people who have a higher household income than we do to continue to receive CB if they are a double income family. Oh, and it would seem that when I no longer get CB I may also not qualify for my National Insurance Stamp meaning that I will not be eligible for a full state pension either- are you going to tell me that I don't need that either?


----------



## babyblog

Surely a much fairer way and a way to save much more money from CB would be to only give CB to a family's first 2 children. All family's would then benefit a little, and if some families decide to have more children they should be able to afford them.

Also-why don't they stop CB when the youngest child turns 10 for example. Surely when a child is at school, most mother's are able to return to work -and if they chose not to-it would be because they could afford to stay off (therefore not needing the CB). CB would remain universal, but the outlay would also be reduced dramatically.


----------



## jenniferannex

to be honest i think its very fair! me and OH only earn 17k a year and thats with both of us working, but we still manage, and yes its a struggle sometimes but we manage.
i can understand that bills are alot of money and even if your earning 44k a year alot of it goes on bills, tax etc. but if me and OH can do it on 17k a year, then people earning over 44k should beable to do that. 
i know i only have 1 child and its difficult for others with more children. 
but on previous posts i have seen some people say that the £80 a month gives them abit of freedom instead of using OHs money, i dont really understand this as the £80 is for the child, not the mother. 
i use Lilys for nappies, milk etc, that way im not having to use my own money for it.

At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.

Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month. 
there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.


----------



## xbabybumpx

babyblog said:


> Surely a much fairer way and a way to save much more money from CB would be to only give CB to a family's first 2 children. All family's would then benefit a little, and if some families decide to have more children they should be able to afford them.
> 
> Also-why don't they stop CB when the youngest child turns 10 for example. Surely when a child is at school, most mother's are able to return to work -and if they chose not to-it would be because they could afford to stay off (therefore not needing the CB). CB would remain universal, but the outlay would also be reduced dramatically.

because the goverment is stupid. i elect you to be next pm:haha:


----------



## pheobe

xbabybumpx said:


> babyblog said:
> 
> 
> Surely a much fairer way and a way to save much more money from CB would be to only give CB to a family's first 2 children. All family's would then benefit a little, and if some families decide to have more children they should be able to afford them.
> 
> Also-why don't they stop CB when the youngest child turns 10 for example. Surely when a child is at school, most mother's are able to return to work -and if they chose not to-it would be because they could afford to stay off (therefore not needing the CB). CB would remain universal, but the outlay would also be reduced dramatically.
> 
> because the goverment is stupid. i elect you to be next pm:haha:Click to expand...

LOL I second the motion!


----------



## leelee

pheobe said:


> xbabybumpx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> babyblog said:
> 
> 
> Surely a much fairer way and a way to save much more money from CB would be to only give CB to a family's first 2 children. All family's would then benefit a little, and if some families decide to have more children they should be able to afford them.
> 
> Also-why don't they stop CB when the youngest child turns 10 for example. Surely when a child is at school, most mother's are able to return to work -and if they chose not to-it would be because they could afford to stay off (therefore not needing the CB). CB would remain universal, but the outlay would also be reduced dramatically.
> 
> because the goverment is stupid. i elect you to be next pm:haha:Click to expand...
> 
> LOL I second the motion!Click to expand...

I third it. Its a great idea!


----------



## indy and lara

jenniferannex said:


> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.

The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.


----------



## jenniferannex

indy and lara said:


> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...

yes i know, but like i said, were lucky to have a home in the first place, yet here we are moaning about £80 less a month when there are mothers and children out there starving, with no water, no food, let alone a house and £80 a month.
thats just the way i see it.


----------



## indy and lara

jenniferannex said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...
> 
> yes i know, but like i said, were lucky to have a home in the first place, yet here we are moaning about £80 less a month when there are mothers and children out there starving, with no water, no food, let alone a house and £80 a month.
> thats just the way i see it.Click to expand...

Yes there are but you could say that about anything...does that mean that we cannot complain or be angry about anything?


----------



## jenniferannex

indy and lara said:


> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...
> 
> yes i know, but like i said, were lucky to have a home in the first place, yet here we are moaning about £80 less a month when there are mothers and children out there starving, with no water, no food, let alone a house and £80 a month.
> thats just the way i see it.Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there are but you could say that about anything...does that mean that we cannot complain or be angry about anything?Click to expand...

no of course it doesnt. thats just the way i see it at the moment after something terrible recently happening in my life.

my life has really been put into perspective and thats now how i feel about things like this. 
of course we have a right to be angry about things, maybe im not in the right state of mind to be posting in this thread. sorry x


----------



## indy and lara

Hun there is no need to be apologising. We all have different things happening to us which change our perspectives at times. Hope that the days ahead are gentle on you. xxx


----------



## ellie27

indy and lara said:


> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...

How will they lose 10% of £50k? I thought it was only £1000 a year child benefit?


----------



## indy and lara

ellie27 said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...
> 
> How will they lose 10% of £50k? I thought it was only £1000 a year child benefit?Click to expand...

The figures with all the cuts added up. The figures across the board are pretty shocking. A single income family on £25k will lose 16% 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-painful-cuts-long-child-benefit-fiasco.html


----------



## pink.crazy

Pfffffffft I'd love to have £44k coming in. I'm sure I wouldn't miss £20 a week!


----------



## mumoffive

This thread is going round and round in circles. It covers the same old stuff. Its going to happen so live with it and nothing on this thread is going to make a blind bit of difference. If your not happy then remember it and vote the tories/lib dems out out when you can.


----------



## FBbaby

xbabybumpx said:


> babyblog said:
> 
> 
> Surely a much fairer way and a way to save much more money from CB would be to only give CB to a family's first 2 children. All family's would then benefit a little, and if some families decide to have more children they should be able to afford them.
> 
> Also-why don't they stop CB when the youngest child turns 10 for example. Surely when a child is at school, most mother's are able to return to work -and if they chose not to-it would be because they could afford to stay off (therefore not needing the CB). CB would remain universal, but the outlay would also be reduced dramatically.
> 
> because the goverment is stupid. i elect you to be next pm:haha:Click to expand...

So will I :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Mrs Dot

mumoffive said:


> This thread is going round and round in circles. It covers the same old stuff. Its going to happen so live with it and nothing on this thread is going to make a blind bit of difference.* If your not happy then remember it and vote the tories/lib dems out out when you can*.

I was thinking exactly the same thing this morning - Although I agree that the way they are planning to do it is totally wrong I'm sick of people whinging about it when the majority of them probably voted tory/lib dem!!!

People in this country have too short a memory to remember all the cuts they made last time they were in power. 

* If you voted for them then you have to live with the changes which they bring in and you can't moan about it!*


----------



## Foogirl

Mrs Dot said:


> I was thinking exactly the same thing this morning - Although I agree that the way they are planning to do it is totally wrong I'm sick of people whinging about it when the majority of them probably voted tory/lib dem!!!
> 
> People in this country have too short a memory to remember all the cuts they made last time they were in power.
> 
> * If you voted for them then you have to live with the changes which they bring in and you can't moan about it!*

Whilst I agree that you pays your money and takes your chance with polititians, I'm not sure we can say those who voted Tory should just suck it up and not complain. I have a certain amount of sympathy because the Tories did, categorically state, that Child Benefit would not be touched. Now the fact they lied about it should come as no surprise, but people have to base their vote on something and if I'd voted for them on the basis of their manifesto pledges, I'd be very annoyed about it too.

Sure the Tories cut heaps of stuff last time. And so did Labour over their time. And whoever got in this time was going to have to do something radical and we all would have suffered.

I'd actually say someone who voted Tory has more right to complain about it than someone who never voted at all!


----------



## Mrs Dot

indy and lara said:


> ellie27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...
> 
> How will they lose 10% of £50k? I thought it was only £1000 a year child benefit?Click to expand...
> 
> The figures with all the cuts added up. The figures across the board are pretty shocking.  A single income family on £25k will lose 16%
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-painful-cuts-long-child-benefit-fiasco.html[/QUOTE]
> 
> Yes but surely you should budget as much as possible based soley on your salary/income without benefits and handouts then if they are suddenly cut then you're not left in a mess????Click to expand...


----------



## Mrs Dot

Foogirl said:


> Mrs Dot said:
> 
> 
> I was thinking exactly the same thing this morning - Although I agree that the way they are planning to do it is totally wrong I'm sick of people whinging about it when the majority of them probably voted tory/lib dem!!!
> 
> People in this country have too short a memory to remember all the cuts they made last time they were in power.
> 
> * If you voted for them then you have to live with the changes which they bring in and you can't moan about it!*
> 
> Whilst I agree that you pays your money and takes your chance with polititians, I'm not sure we can say those who voted Tory should just suck it up and not complain. I have a certain amount of sympathy because the Tories did, categorically state, that Child Benefit would not be touched. Now the fact they lied about it should come as no surprise, but people have to base their vote on something and if I'd voted for them on the basis of their manifesto pledges, I'd be very annoyed about it too.
> 
> Sure the Tories cut heaps of stuff last time. And so did Labour over their time. And whoever got in this time was going to have to do something radical and we all would have suffered.
> 
> I'd actually say someone who voted Tory has more right to complain about it than someone who never voted at all!Click to expand...

This just goes to show that all politicians are liars! I do agree that if you voted tory that you have more of a right to complain, but that's what people did in their millions and now we're all paying for it. I agree that Labour left things in a mess, but it annoys me when people say this because they also were doing A LOT right too!


----------



## ellie27

Mrs Dot said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ellie27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...
> 
> How will they lose 10% of £50k? I thought it was only £1000 a year child benefit?Click to expand...
> 
> The figures with all the cuts added up. The figures across the board are pretty shocking.  A single income family on £25k will lose 16%
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-painful-cuts-long-child-benefit-fiasco.html[/QUOTE]
> 
> Yes but surely you should budget as much as possible based soley on your salary/income without benefits and handouts then if they are suddenly cut then you're not left in a mess????Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, Mrs Dot! But I have never been in the position of having benefits and so I guess it would be pretty shocking to have a huge cut in them - they have been around such a long time I suppose.Click to expand...


----------



## Foogirl

Mrs Dot said:


> Yes but surely you should budget as much as possible based soley on your salary/income without benefits and handouts then if they are suddenly cut then you're not left in a mess????

Of course you should try to do that. Everyone should live within their own means, but it is also worth looking at what has happened in the last couple of years.

The cost of living has increased a fair bit, many people have had to take a pay cut, fuel is up again, VAT is going up... so what was once a comfortable position with CB being a nice little bonus may well have turned into something a little more difficult to swallow.

16% off your income is quite difficult, especially with a cost of living increase which represents around half of that. And if WFTC, CTC and CB isn't something we think is necessary to give to parents then why was it ever introduced. They looked at what families were earning and in order to bring children out of poverty, they introduced these tax credits to make things easier for familes - and also to make it more attractive for people to work, than choose to survive on benefits alone.

And why is it these single income families who are disproportionately bearing the brunt of these cuts? As far as I can see, there are plenty of other groups who aren't having to suffer any legacy of the last ten years of overspending.


----------



## Foogirl

Mrs Dot said:


> I agree that Labour left things in a mess, but it annoys me when people say this because they also were doing A LOT right too!

Oh I'm no fan of either of them - and yes all politicians are liars! - and I also don't believe what happened was the fault of Labour, that's too simple an explaination for the problems. But, whomever was in now, there would be cuts, massive ones. They would affect everyone and I actually don't believe the balance of who they affected would be much different with Labour.

But none of that should bar people from complaining about it!!


----------



## pheobe

Foogirl said:


> Mrs Dot said:
> 
> 
> I agree that Labour left things in a mess, but it annoys me when people say this because they also were doing A LOT right too!
> 
> Oh I'm no fan of either of them - and yes all politicians are liars! - and I also don't believe what happened was the fault of Labour, that's too simple an explaination for the problems. But, whomever was in now, there would be cuts, massive ones. They would affect everyone and I actually don't believe the balance of who they affected would be much different with Labour.
> 
> But none of that should bar people from complaining about it!!Click to expand...

:thumbup:


----------



## Eve

I've only read the first few pages, so if I've missed something important let me know :) 

I think we all need to learn to live within our means. Here in Canada we get the Canadian Child Tax Benefit, Universal Child Care Benefit, and the GST/HST Credit. My CCTB is $240.00 a month for 2 children, I get $100.00 from the UCCB and our combined GST/HST credit is $91.00 every 3 months. I was working making around $14,000.00 per year, and my OH makes around $30,000.00 per year. We have a nice house, reliable (kind of) car, and all our bills, food etc... If I lost my child benefits, that would cut out a big chunk of money I get every month... and we could end up loosing our home or something... but I do know some people who have got pregnant to get more money... better benefits, higher welfare and cheap housing, which I also do not find fair. A girl I knew had 3 kids, all under 6 yrs old, so she was getting around $1000.00 per month from the government in benefits, then her welfare was around $1000.00 for the month. Her rent was subbed so she paid under $200.00 for it, no car, no insurance etc...! She lived better than we did when it came to extra money, and I don't find that fair at all. We do need welfare and other benefits as there are lots of people who do genuinly need them, but there are also people who abuse the system, and use children to get more money :( It's a situation where there will always be someone left out, as we couldn't please everyone. I know once we get our debts paid down I will no longer budget what we can afford to include my child benefits... so it will be extra for the children :) Some people on paper look to have a great income, but also would have more bills than someone with lesser income (for the most part). Since buying our home we pay $635.00 for mortgage, $67.00 house insurance and $48.00 mortgage insurance, also $350.00 a year for sewage, $60 a year for water and around $1000.00 a year in property tax! Just to own a home... then with a car to get to work, there are car payments, car insurance, gas, car repairs etc... which can be expensive, then your heat, lights, phone (basics) which still would run around $200.00 plus extras like tv, internet, cell phones, credit cards, bank fees, loans, then groceries! It's an expensive world out there and with the amount of taxes we pay, we should have nice regulated benefits for all :)

I don't even know if this makes sense... I'm so tired today!


----------



## WW1

Foogirl said:


> Mrs Dot said:
> 
> 
> I agree that Labour left things in a mess, but it annoys me when people say this because they also were doing A LOT right too!
> 
> Oh I'm no fan of either of them - and yes all politicians are liars! - and I also don't believe what happened was the fault of Labour, that's too simple an explaination for the problems. But, whomever was in now, there would be cuts, massive ones. They would affect everyone and I actually don't believe the balance of who they affected would be much different with Labour.
> 
> But none of that should bar people from complaining about it!!Click to expand...

I agree that cuts would be happening regardless of who got in. The difference is the scale and speed of the cuts. The Tories and Labour had very different views about how quickly the cuts needed to happen. In my opinion, the speed of the cuts with the current Government will lead us into a deeper recession than more steady reductions which would affect people at a slower rate. I know the old argument about ripping a plaster off quickly so it hurts less but losing 16% of your household income is going to hurt lots and for a long time too!


----------



## indy and lara

ellie27 said:


> Mrs Dot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ellie27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jenniferannex said:
> 
> 
> *At the end of the day its only money, they need to do this to make things better for the future, the countries in a mess at the moment and they have to make ends meet.*
> 
> Just be lucky your not homeless, we all have beautiful children, a home and we can look after them. we are all very lucky to be even getting an extra £80 a month.
> there are more important things in life than worrying about the government getting rid of CB.
> 
> The thing is that many of us are already heavily contributing financially to this country and we did not make this mess. We are however paying the price for other people's errors. Single income households with 2 children earning £50k a year are going to be losing 10% of their gross income through the CB and benefit changes. That is not okay or fine. That is an ENORMOUS reduction.Click to expand...
> 
> How will they lose 10% of £50k? I thought it was only £1000 a year child benefit?Click to expand...
> 
> The figures with all the cuts added up. The figures across the board are pretty shocking.  A single income family on £25k will lose 16%
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-painful-cuts-long-child-benefit-fiasco.html[/QUOTE]
> 
> Yes but surely you should budget as much as possible based soley on your salary/income without benefits and handouts then if they are suddenly cut then you're not left in a mess????Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, Mrs Dot! *But I have never been in the position of having benefits and so I guess it would be pretty shocking to have a huge cut in them *- they have been around such a long time I suppose.Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Tory or a Lib Dem voter. I voted against the current Government and I think I am entitled to complain about them and their policies. I would imagine that those who did vote for these parties believing that they would protect many benefits must feel very betrayed.
> 
> I have made the same point over and over again since this thread started. My issue is the unfairness of it all. Really and seriously do you think that it is okay that a household with an income of £60k, £70k or £80k should continue to receive CB but one with single earner income of £44k should not? Why should I roll over and say ' Yip, we will help the country recover' when others are not actually contributing despite their income being considerably more than ours?
> 
> OH supports our family and other than CB we have never received benefits nor are we dependent on them. We also live within our means and chose to delay having a family until we were in the position to support ourselves, which allowed me to give up work and be a SAHM. These benefits have been part of many people's income for a long time and when 1 group is disproportionately shouldering government cuts I think that they are likely to complain and be up in arms about it.
> 
> It would be naive to think that these cuts are over yet. There will be a lot more to come. I wonder if people will be so quick to tell others to get over it when they are directly impacted?Click to expand...


----------



## Foogirl

WW1 said:


> I agree that cuts would be happening regardless of who got in. The difference is the scale and speed of the cuts. The Tories and Labour had very different views about how quickly the cuts needed to happen. In my opinion, the speed of the cuts with the current Government will lead us into a deeper recession than more steady reductions which would affect people at a slower rate. I know the old argument about ripping a plaster off quickly so it hurts less but losing 16% of your household income is going to hurt lots and for a long time too!

I agree losing 16% is going to be difficult for many. I lost 8% of my salary in a pay cut 2 years ago and haven't had a payrise since so arguably with inflation I have lost almost that amount, and it has made a difference.

I think it is swings and roundabouts with Tory or Labour. There are pros and cons of "quick versus slow." We might have a double dip with quick cuts, but the same risk of double dip was there before the tories came to power too. Cut too quickly and people stop spending money, cut too slowly and industry finds it harder to recover and we spend a fortune on interest rates for the deficit so the cuts have to happen for longer. Both ways, we are in for a decade of pain. I can guarantee if Labour got in we'd be having a discussion over something else they'd cut! The overall argument as I see it is not whether quick or slow is better, but whether they should be targetting families the way they seem to be. And I doubt Labour would have taken much of a different tack there.


----------



## WW1

Foogirl said:


> WW1 said:
> 
> 
> I agree that cuts would be happening regardless of who got in. The difference is the scale and speed of the cuts. The Tories and Labour had very different views about how quickly the cuts needed to happen. In my opinion, the speed of the cuts with the current Government will lead us into a deeper recession than more steady reductions which would affect people at a slower rate. I know the old argument about ripping a plaster off quickly so it hurts less but losing 16% of your household income is going to hurt lots and for a long time too!
> 
> I agree losing 16% is going to be difficult for many. I lost 8% of my salary in a pay cut 2 years ago and haven't had a payrise since so arguably with inflation I have lost almost that amount, and it has made a difference.
> 
> I think it is swings and roundabouts with Tory or Labour. There are pros and cons of "quick versus slow." We might have a double dip with quick cuts, but the same risk of double dip was there before the tories came to power too. Cut too quickly and people stop spending money, cut too slowly and industry finds it harder to recover and we spend a fortune on interest rates for the deficit so the cuts have to happen for longer. Both ways, we are in for a decade of pain. I can guarantee if Labour got in we'd be having a discussion over something else they'd cut! The overall argument as I see it is not whether quick or slow is better, but whether they should be targetting families the way they seem to be. And I doubt Labour would have taken much of a different tack there.Click to expand...

I also think labour would be targeting higher earning families and I would argue strongly that is the way it should be (and before I get jumped on DH and I will lose CB as we earn too much)! I'm actually worried that in the coming months the Tories will disproportionately hit the poorer members of society rather than hitting those with higher incomes. My worry is that getting rid of CB for "higher earners" is a way for them to say "well it's affecting everyone" when they lop a huge amount off all other benefits.

One example of higher earners benefitting under this government is moving the tax free allowance to £10 000. On the face of it, it sounds as though this will help poorer people more. However, in reality, most people who earned just 10K per year would be getting tax credits and so weren't paying an enormous amount of tax anyway. Higher rate tax payers however, weren't getting any credits and therefore will get the full benefit. 

In the defence of the lib dem manifesto (I'm no fan of the lib dems by the way!) the 10k tax free allowance was part of a bigger taxing picture which included a mansion tax etc. The Tories have got rid of this bit - again benefitting higher incomes (I'm talking mega bucks here not families on £44k!)

David Cameron isn't stupid and would know the uproar the CB decision would make. I think it's a way of paving the way for huge benefit cuts across the board and that will affect poorer families far harder than the well earning ones.

Sorry for the essay :flower:


----------



## moomoo

cb1 said:


> moomoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xolily said:
> 
> 
> if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."
> 
> i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:
> 
> I'd have to work an extra day if I worked one hour over 16 to make up the time. An extra day away from my baby for nothing? Anyone would do the same in the same situation so I don't know why everyones got on their high horse about it!!!?
> 
> Did you see my post xolily? Was very similar to yours. XClick to expand...
> 
> Ok, lets make a deal then... you work your 16 hours, claim benifits from our financially crippled government, and get to see your LO take their first steps, say their first words, etc and I'll work 5 days a week, not spend valuable time with my LO, take nothing back from the govenment, and pay my higher rate taxes which go into the pot that helps fund your lifestyle choice, and not "get on my high horse" about it... Fair?Click to expand...

For your information the only benefits I claim are CB and tax credits. Which correct me if i'm wrong is what everyone is entitled to claim?

Also for your information, before I went back to work I met up with a financial adviser (provided by my local job centre) to work out my best work options and work out how i'd be better off. So infact, the choice I made was helped by our so called "financially crippled goverment" NOT myself. In fact I claimed no tax credits until my little man was about 7 months because I was ignorant to the fact I could claim them.

Believe it or not, i'm one of the "lucky" ones that could actually return to work. In my area it is common for women to be better off to not work at all. (Due to very poor wages and lack of actual work) 

So yes, I will only work 16 hours a week. I'm better off that way. Why would I work an extra day away from my child, for nothing. I wouldnt, and neither would ANYONE in the same situation. :nope:

We all want whats best for our LOs and this was the best option for me. (and some others by the sounds of it) 

:flower:


----------



## emsiee

I think the government are targeting the wrong benefit!! Its the tax credits system where cuts need to be made, not Child Benefit. Its absolutely ridiculous how much money some people get a month in tax credits


----------



## indy and lara

moomoo said:


> cb1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moomoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xolily said:
> 
> 
> if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."
> 
> i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:
> 
> I'd have to work an extra day if I worked one hour over 16 to make up the time. An extra day away from my baby for nothing? Anyone would do the same in the same situation so I don't know why everyones got on their high horse about it!!!?
> 
> Did you see my post xolily? Was very similar to yours. XClick to expand...
> 
> Ok, lets make a deal then... you work your 16 hours, claim benifits from our financially crippled government, and get to see your LO take their first steps, say their first words, etc and I'll work 5 days a week, not spend valuable time with my LO, take nothing back from the govenment, and pay my higher rate taxes which go into the pot that helps fund your lifestyle choice, and not "get on my high horse" about it... Fair?Click to expand...
> 
> *For your information the only benefits I claim are CB and tax credits. Which correct me if i'm wrong is what everyone is entitled to claim?*Click to expand...

Not everyone is entitled to tax credits. They are quite different from CB as they are income based.


----------



## moomoo

indy and lara said:


> moomoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cb1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moomoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xolily said:
> 
> 
> if i can afford, with the help of the government, to only work 16 hours a week and spend the majority of my time with my daughter then i will :shrug: i'm sure alot of other mums would too, judging by the amount i see posting "if i could afford to spend more time at home..."
> 
> i agree that it shouldn't be this way, but you can't slate us who take what's provided :shrug:
> 
> I'd have to work an extra day if I worked one hour over 16 to make up the time. An extra day away from my baby for nothing? Anyone would do the same in the same situation so I don't know why everyones got on their high horse about it!!!?
> 
> Did you see my post xolily? Was very similar to yours. XClick to expand...
> 
> Ok, lets make a deal then... you work your 16 hours, claim benifits from our financially crippled government, and get to see your LO take their first steps, say their first words, etc and I'll work 5 days a week, not spend valuable time with my LO, take nothing back from the govenment, and pay my higher rate taxes which go into the pot that helps fund your lifestyle choice, and not "get on my high horse" about it... Fair?Click to expand...
> 
> *For your information the only benefits I claim are CB and tax credits. Which correct me if i'm wrong is what everyone is entitled to claim?*Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to tax credits. They are quite different from CB as they are income based.Click to expand...

Thanks, I dont know what the cut off is for this but I know of people who claim this with 2 x full time wages. So it must be pretty high? Either that or the people I know dont earn very much :shrug:


----------



## MrsGlitz

I wonder what you all think I should do? If I go back to work full time (part time not an option in my company) after childcare I will be left with £126 a month. Before travel (£60 a month). On a combined income we are not entitled to help with childcare costs. Yet if I don't go back to work we will be entitled to HB worth more than my take home after childcare and travel costs. I have checked this 4 times over the last week!


----------



## moomoo

MrsGlitz said:


> I wonder what you all think I should do? If I go back to work full time (part time not an option in my company) after childcare I will be left with £126 a month. Before travel (£60 a month). On a combined income we are not entitled to help with childcare costs. Yet if I don't go back to work we will be entitled to HB worth more than my take home after childcare and travel costs. I have checked this 4 times over the last week!

Chat with a rep from your local Job centre, they will be able to give you a breakdown of everything, including how much tax you will be paying ect


----------



## MrsGlitz

I will do moomoo. I've used the government websites and it just doesn't make sense that I will be better off not working?!


----------



## WW1

MrsGlitz said:


> I wonder what you all think I should do? If I go back to work full time (part time not an option in my company) after childcare I will be left with £126 a month. Before travel (£60 a month). On a combined income we are not entitled to help with childcare costs. Yet if I don't go back to work we will be entitled to HB worth more than my take home after childcare and travel costs. I have checked this 4 times over the last week!

In your position I'd take the benefits and stop working as it seems a more financially viable option and you spend more time with your LO :flower:.

To me, it's clearly a ridiculous situation when people can be better off on benefits than going back to work full time. That, however is the fault of the system and not the individuals who have worked out they are better off working part time and are using the system to suit them. If I were in the same position I would work out what would make me better off financially and then go with that. 

People work within the system they are given - they shouldn't be criticised for doing so. It is the system that needs changing so that going to work is financially more attractive than not doing so.


----------



## moomoo

MrsGlitz said:


> I will do moomoo. I've used the government websites and it just doesn't make sense that I will be better off not working?!

Depending on your wage, you may be better off not working. Speak to them, they know exactly what they are talking about and will give you printed options and breakdowns. :thumbup:


----------



## LPF

Just be a bit cautious as one big part of the governments manifesto is to stop benefits for people who choose not to work rather than can't find a job. Don't know how soon this is coming in but everyday some new cut seems to be happening!!


----------



## Foogirl

MrsGlitz said:


> I wonder what you all think I should do? If I go back to work full time (part time not an option in my company) after childcare I will be left with £126 a month. Before travel (£60 a month). On a combined income we are not entitled to help with childcare costs. Yet if I don't go back to work we will be entitled to HB worth more than my take home after childcare and travel costs. I have checked this 4 times over the last week!

You might be able to join the voucher scheme. You pay for your vouchers directly from your salary so that portion isn't taxable. It's not a huge amount, but every little helps.


----------



## MrsGlitz

Foogirl said:


> MrsGlitz said:
> 
> 
> I wonder what you all think I should do? If I go back to work full time (part time not an option in my company) after childcare I will be left with £126 a month. Before travel (£60 a month). On a combined income we are not entitled to help with childcare costs. Yet if I don't go back to work we will be entitled to HB worth more than my take home after childcare and travel costs. I have checked this 4 times over the last week!
> 
> You might be able to join the voucher scheme. You pay for your vouchers directly from your salary so that portion isn't taxable. It's not a huge amount, but every little helps.Click to expand...

My work are on the voucher scheme, I've taken that into consideration. It's ludicrous!


----------



## Foogirl

WW1 said:


> I also think labour would be targeting higher earning families and I would argue strongly that is the way it should be (and before I get jumped on DH and I will lose CB as we earn too much)!

I agree that is exactly what should be happening. Again I'm not convinced Labour would do that either. After all, they never did did they? 10p tax rate abolition was one example.

In every budget, it did seem that, with the exception of the increasingly generous benefits system, the lower earners did disproportionately badly out of the budget over all. When you took into account their "stealth taxes" (gah I hate that term!) the lower earners were paying, in percentage terms, a much higer proportion of their salary in tax.

I think one of the problems is, no one can really agree on what's wealthy. Many people would probably think you and I are very well off (judging by some of the comments so far) But you and I both know we aren't that well off in the scheme of things. And I suppose someone earning more than us might not actually have a great deal more disposable income either.


----------



## xxembobxx

From what I have found out if I don't return to work we will get tax credits which are worth more than my wages once childcare is deductetd. It's madness!
I want to return to work as I'm worried being out of the workplace will make it harder to return later on but then I also worry that going to work and the costs involved will mean we are only £30 a week better off and I know young children get ill a lot so if I start having days off work unpaid I will actually be worse off than sitting at home!


----------



## WW1

Foogirl said:


> I think one of the problems is, no one can really agree on what's wealthy. Many people would probably think you and I are very well off (judging by some of the comments so far) But you and I both know we aren't that well off in the scheme of things. And I suppose someone earning more than us might not actually have a great deal more disposable income either.

I think you're right here. The definition of wealthy is totally subjective. To me, being wealthy is where money is no object. Many people who are perceived as wealthy are (in my opinion) comfortable. Comfortable doesn't equal rich! There are so many factors involved (where you live being a major one as the cost of living does vary massively around the country). I would describe my personal situation as comfortable. I still have to work (couldn't afford not to) but we do have a few pounds to spare each month ~ how long I'll be able to say that for though I'm not sure!


----------



## xolily

what do you mean i can't afford to stay at home with my child cos i'm claiming "benefits"? i CAN afford it, the government ALLOWS me to do so. are all these people who are slating it telling me they don't claim CTC or WTC? why would anyone in their right mind go back to work fulltime and miss out on their children, rather than take what the government offers and work parttime? it baffles me! it strikes me that the people who don't like it seem to be the people who couldn't afford to live if they worked part time and claimed CTC & WTC..that's not my fault :shrug: i'm sure if you could, you would. as i said before, it's a no brainer for me. i've worked fulltime (60-70 hours a week) since i was 16 (and had jobs previous to that from the age of 13!).. i'm by no means workshy or lazy and will go back to work fulltime once Laila is in nursery!


----------



## pheobe

xolily said:


> what do you mean i can't afford to stay at home with my child cos i'm claiming "benefits"? i CAN afford it, the government ALLOWS me to do so.

The entire point of claiming benefits is because you cannot maintain an adequate standard of life on your salary; this is where the POV comes from that you cannot afford to stay at home. 



xolily said:


> are all these people who are slating it telling me they don't claim CTC or WTC?

Nope not a penny not entitled 



xolily said:


> why would anyone in their right mind go back to work fulltime and miss out on their children, rather than take what the government offers and work parttime? it baffles me! it strikes me that the people who don't like it seem to be the people who couldn't afford to live if they worked part time and claimed CTC & WTC..that's not my fault

I could quite easily give up work (I Work part time currently) and survive on hubbys wage BUT I don't want to SURVIVE I want to 'live' my life and enjoy it. I want to teach my son that the world is big place where you can go out and make a life for yourself doing anything you want to do, be whoever you want to be and set an example which will mould him into the man I want him to become. I want him to understand that for everything little thing in his life he wants he must work for it.

I'm not slating you or anyone else in your circumstance I just happen to believe that just because something is there or it's possible to claim something doesn't make it right to do so. No offence intended


----------



## aob1013

xolily said:


> what do you mean i can't afford to stay at home with my child cos i'm claiming "benefits"? i CAN afford it, the government ALLOWS me to do so. are all these people who are slating it telling me they don't claim CTC or WTC? why would anyone in their right mind go back to work fulltime and miss out on their children, rather than take what the government offers and work parttime? it baffles me! it strikes me that the people who don't like it seem to be the people who couldn't afford to live if they worked part time and claimed CTC & WTC..that's not my fault :shrug: i'm sure if you could, you would. as i said before, it's a no brainer for me. i've worked fulltime (60-70 hours a week) since i was 16 (and had jobs previous to that from the age of 13!).. i'm by no means workshy or lazy and will go back to work fulltime once Laila is in nursery!

The point is you CAN'T afford it because if you were not eligible for benefits you would have no choice but go back to work because you cannot afford to be a SAHM without government assistance. So, no you can't afford it.

I think also it's about morals sometimes, people can of course claim it, but would rather work and make their own money.


----------



## gills8752

I think some people think of benefits as a source income - it's not supposed to be a source of income - its a lifeline to help you feed you and your family and keep a roof over your heads.
It really does come down to morals now days though. I don't work, I could easily claim CTC but I don't as we struggle by on my husbands wages. I'm not going to claim them because whilst it may allow me to provide a temporary better life for my baby - in the long run it will help bankrupt our country more and by the time our children have grown up there will be even more public spending cuts, therefore more public services lost which is cause a lot more harm than her not having brand new clothes when she was 8 months old.


----------



## keldac

So all SAHM on Tax credits are using the system are they? Is that what people are saying??? I don't mean this in a nasty way at all I am just asking for your opinions as I see it in a very different way.

I am a SAHm and I do receive tax credits - but I worked for 15 years prior to being a sahm and my husband has put into the system for 25 years and works full time. So we are entitled to take a few years off and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system for 3 years until our baby goes to pre-school.

I worked in customer service earning £900 per month. After nursery fees and link clubs (2 older children) I would pick up next to nothing so it really isn't worth me going back to work.

We CAN survive on my husbands wage but of course we claim tax credits as well...it would be stupid not to...just like the ridiculously rich people claiming child benefit when they don't need it. (I mean millionaires not people on £44k!!!)

Sorry if I have gone off topic! Or are you all talking about sahm with no other income (I have hubby working full time). I wasn't really sure if I had the right end of the stick lol!! :flower:


----------



## gills8752

keldac - i'm in the same position as you, I dont work, my earnings would only just cover nursery etc so I chose not to work.
But - we do survive on hubbys wages - the only thing i claim in CB which we'll get to keep for the moment but not claimin ctc or wtc. I've of the opinion that if we can afford to live without it then I will and try to do my little bit for getting this countries deficit improved.
(I'm not being nasty or judging btw - just my opinion :flower:)


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

keldac said:


> I am a SAHm and I do receive tax credits - but I worked for 15 years prior to being a sahm and my husband has put into the system for 25 years and works full time. So we are entitled to take a few years off and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system for 3 years until our baby goes to pre-school.

That isn't the idea behind paying tax though, is it? It's not a fund that you pay into and then dip into it in the future when you want to take a few years off. It's what you pay to help, amongst other things, people who NEED benefits to survive.


----------



## moomoo

gills8752 said:


> I think some people think of benefits as a source income - it's not supposed to be a source of income - its a lifeline to help you feed you and your family and keep a roof over your heads.
> It really does come down to morals now days though. I don't work, I could easily claim CTC but I don't as we struggle by on my husbands wages. I'm not going to claim them because whilst it may allow me to provide a temporary better life for my baby - in the long run it will help bankrupt our country more and by the time our children have grown up there will be even more public spending cuts, therefore more public services lost which is cause a lot more harm than her not having brand new clothes when she was 8 months old.

Good for you, but I'll be taking back some of what I put in for the years I've been working. I refuse to work an extra day away from my child for nothing!!! I couldn't care less whether people may think I'm "scrounging" from the government... There is a lot worse in life that scrounge from our government ie drug addicts, benefit cheats ect..


----------



## keldac

Mum2b_Claire said:


> keldac said:
> 
> 
> I am a SAHm and I do receive tax credits - but I worked for 15 years prior to being a sahm and my husband has put into the system for 25 years and works full time. So we are entitled to take a few years off and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system for 3 years until our baby goes to pre-school.
> 
> That isn't the idea behind paying tax though, is it? It's not a fund that you pay into and then dip into it in the future when you want to take a few years off. It's what you pay to help, amongst other things, people who NEED benefits to survive.Click to expand...


But everybody moans about having to pay for other peoples kids from 'their tax' so I am pointing out that I have paid MY tax for years. I am certainly not 'dipping into it' to survive.

As I have said we survive on hubbys wage so I have not given up work to claim extra benefits...we would still get tax credits even if I went back to work... and whilst the goverment is going to hand out we will accept...just like people earning loads of money accept child benefit.

Obviously nobody wants money taken off them...that's how this thread started...but if it went we could and will have enough money.


----------



## Natasha2605

aob1013 said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> what do you mean i can't afford to stay at home with my child cos i'm claiming "benefits"? i CAN afford it, the government ALLOWS me to do so. are all these people who are slating it telling me they don't claim CTC or WTC? why would anyone in their right mind go back to work fulltime and miss out on their children, rather than take what the government offers and work parttime? it baffles me! it strikes me that the people who don't like it seem to be the people who couldn't afford to live if they worked part time and claimed CTC & WTC..that's not my fault :shrug: i'm sure if you could, you would. as i said before, it's a no brainer for me. i've worked fulltime (60-70 hours a week) since i was 16 (and had jobs previous to that from the age of 13!).. i'm by no means workshy or lazy and will go back to work fulltime once Laila is in nursery!
> 
> The point is you CAN'T afford it because if you were not eligible for benefits you would have no choice but go back to work because you cannot afford to be a SAHM without government assistance. So, no you can't afford it.
> 
> I think also it's about morals sometimes, people can of course claim it, but would rather work and make their own money.Click to expand...



I typed something along those lines out 20 mins ago but deleted it cause I didn't wanna see like I was being a bitch.

I claim CTC but I still believe that if you cannot afford to survive on your OH's wage or without benefits then you should not have the option to stay at home. I COULD afford to be a SAHM on my OH's wage and benefits but that's not the point.

IMO it's about ethic. The work ethic in this country is often sooo poor. I work because it's the way I've been brought up. I support myself, why should somebody else do it for me. I choose to have children therefore I should pay for them by going out to work. To me, it's as simple as that 

xx


----------



## LankyDoodle

Mum2b_Claire said:


> keldac said:
> 
> 
> I am a SAHm and I do receive tax credits - but I worked for 15 years prior to being a sahm and my husband has put into the system for 25 years and works full time. So we are entitled to take a few years off and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system for 3 years until our baby goes to pre-school.
> 
> That isn't the idea behind paying tax though, is it? It's not a fund that you pay into and then dip into it in the future when you want to take a few years off. It's what you pay to help, amongst other things, people who NEED benefits to survive.Click to expand...

I think people are getting confused with _savings_. :wacko: I think it's just a sign of the times that people view benefits in this way rather than as their original purpose, which was for people in absolute DIRE predicaments and with no other means of providing food and shelter for their families. Renders me almost speechless if I'm honest.


----------



## indy and lara

xolily said:


> what do you mean i can't afford to stay at home with my child cos i'm claiming "benefits"? i CAN afford it, the government ALLOWS me to do so. are all these people who are slating it telling me they don't claim CTC or WTC? why would anyone in their right mind go back to work fulltime and miss out on their children, rather than take what the government offers and work parttime? it baffles me! it strikes me that the people who don't like it seem to be the people who couldn't afford to live if they worked part time and claimed CTC & WTC..that's not my fault :shrug: i'm sure if you could, you would. as i said before, it's a no brainer for me. i've worked fulltime (60-70 hours a week) since i was 16 (and had jobs previous to that from the age of 13!).. i'm by no means workshy or lazy and will go back to work fulltime once Laila is in nursery!



I am not slating you. I am stating my opinion that if you are claiming benefits in order to be a SAHM(and WTC and CTC are benefits) then you really cannot afford to stay at home. I am a SAHM but don't claim WTC or CTC so not all those who don't like it couldn't afford to do it themselves. 

I think what a number of us are saying is that the Government should not be creating a situation where people are using benefits in order to stay off work with their LO. The benefits system was put in place in order to support the most vulnerable and needy in society. It is not designed to be a lifestyle choice. The tax system in not a saving scheme designed so that we can take some money out when we fancy it.


----------



## keldac

LankyDoodle said:


> Mum2b_Claire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keldac said:
> 
> 
> I am a SAHm and I do receive tax credits - but I worked for 15 years prior to being a sahm and my husband has put into the system for 25 years and works full time. So we are entitled to take a few years off and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system for 3 years until our baby goes to pre-school.
> 
> That isn't the idea behind paying tax though, is it? It's not a fund that you pay into and then dip into it in the future when you want to take a few years off. It's what you pay to help, amongst other things, people who NEED benefits to survive.Click to expand...
> 
> I think people are getting confused with _savings_. :wacko: I think it's just a sign of the times that people view benefits in this way rather than as their original purpose, which was for people in absolute DIRE predicaments and with no other means of providing food and shelter for their families. Renders me almost speechless if I'm honest.Click to expand...

what renders you speechless?? That I can afford to be a sahm and pointed out that I have paid tax????
I survive on oh wage not tax credits??
I'm not being funny but I think you have misread?? :flower:


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

keldac said:


> LankyDoodle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mum2b_Claire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keldac said:
> 
> 
> I am a SAHm and I do receive tax credits - but I worked for 15 years prior to being a sahm and my husband has put into the system for 25 years and works full time. So we are entitled to take a few years off and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system for 3 years until our baby goes to pre-school.
> 
> That isn't the idea behind paying tax though, is it? It's not a fund that you pay into and then dip into it in the future when you want to take a few years off. It's what you pay to help, amongst other things, people who NEED benefits to survive.Click to expand...
> 
> I think people are getting confused with _savings_. :wacko: I think it's just a sign of the times that people view benefits in this way rather than as their original purpose, which was for people in absolute DIRE predicaments and with no other means of providing food and shelter for their families. Renders me almost speechless if I'm honest.Click to expand...
> 
> what renders you speechless?? That I can afford to be a sahm and pointed out that I have paid tax????
> I survive on oh wage not tax credits??
> I'm not being funny but I think you have misread?? :flower:Click to expand...

But why did you say 'and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system'
That to me, sounds like you are claming something?


----------



## keldac

I think what a number of us are saying is that the Government should not be creating a situation where people are using benefits in order to stay off work with their LO. Quote

sorry I'm a thicko I understand what you're saying now. 
And just for the record I don't use benefits just to stay off work lol!! hubby pays our way.

Without being patronising to anyone lets hope this government does reform the whole system so it does pay to work! :flower:


----------



## keldac

Mum2b_Claire said:


> keldac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LankyDoodle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mum2b_Claire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keldac said:
> 
> 
> I am a SAHm and I do receive tax credits - but I worked for 15 years prior to being a sahm and my husband has put into the system for 25 years and works full time. So we are entitled to take a few years off and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system for 3 years until our baby goes to pre-school.
> 
> That isn't the idea behind paying tax though, is it? It's not a fund that you pay into and then dip into it in the future when you want to take a few years off. It's what you pay to help, amongst other things, people who NEED benefits to survive.Click to expand...
> 
> I think people are getting confused with _savings_. :wacko: I think it's just a sign of the times that people view benefits in this way rather than as their original purpose, which was for people in absolute DIRE predicaments and with no other means of providing food and shelter for their families. Renders me almost speechless if I'm honest.Click to expand...
> 
> what renders you speechless?? That I can afford to be a sahm and pointed out that I have paid tax????
> I survive on oh wage not tax credits??
> I'm not being funny but I think you have misread?? :flower:Click to expand...
> 
> But why did you say 'and reclaim only a tiny proportion of what we put into the system'
> That to me, sounds like you are claming something?Click to expand...

As I said I was just pointing out to people I have paid tax and I claim tax credits because hubby earns less than 40K so it is a claim isn't it? But i certainly haven't stopped working just to claim money back we put in! lol! :flower:
Can you guess I'm not very good at wording things :dohh:


----------



## MrsGlitz

Believe me I don't want to claim anything but with the cost of childcare and travel to work I'll be lucky to break even. I'm not prepared to miss out on 50 hours a week with my baby for nothing.

My jobcentre were useless and told me to contact the Tax Credits people next week.


----------



## xolily

all i can say is if the government are willing to offer it, then i'm willing to take it - it's a flaw in their system, not a flaw in my upbringing, or morals, or work ethic. i'll be damned if i'm gonna work 60 hours a week, not see my child and then have other people being home with their children just because some people see it as wrong - complain to the government, not us who claim what we are ENTITLED to.. you might say benefits are for this or that but if that was the case we wouldn't receive it! won't be replying again.. just going round in circles :)


----------



## venusrockstar

I can't believe that people these days think they are ENTITLED to certain things. The assistance is there for people who NEED help, not for greedy people who just want a little extra money.


----------



## moomoo

venusrockstar said:


> I can't believe that people these days think they are ENTITLED to certain things. The assistance is there for people who NEED help, not for greedy people who just want a little extra money.

You haven't listened at all have you? :nope:


----------



## venusrockstar

moomoo said:


> venusrockstar said:
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people these days think they are ENTITLED to certain things. The assistance is there for people who NEED help, not for greedy people who just want a little extra money.
> 
> You haven't listened at all have you? :nope:Click to expand...

I didn't read the whole thread...posted my opinion.


----------



## Natasha2605

Venusrockstar - your avatar and sig are absolutely gorgeous! xx


----------



## venusrockstar

Thanks hun :)


----------



## moomoo

venusrockstar said:


> moomoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> venusrockstar said:
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people these days think they are ENTITLED to certain things. The assistance is there for people who NEED help, not for greedy people who just want a little extra money.
> 
> You haven't listened at all have you? :nope:Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't read the whole thread...posted my opinion.Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought you were slating those of us that claim tax credits... Which is apparently wrong now too! :dohh:
:flower:


----------



## indy and lara

I am not sure that anyone is saying that tax credits are wrong- what is being said is that they are a benefit.


----------



## venusrockstar

moomoo said:


> venusrockstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moomoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> venusrockstar said:
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people these days think they are ENTITLED to certain things. The assistance is there for people who NEED help, not for greedy people who just want a little extra money.
> 
> You haven't listened at all have you? :nope:Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't read the whole thread...posted my opinion.Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I thought you were slating those of us that claim tax credits... Which is apparently wrong now too! :dohh:
> :flower:Click to expand...

No. If you need the credits then I think it's fine. I'm referring to people who make like $100,000 a year between 2 people who clearly don't need help. I don't think they should be whining about not being able to receive it.


----------



## Lucy Lu

Gingerspice said:


> Lucy Lu said:
> 
> 
> I wonder what they are going to do with the money saved instead? If it goes to more needy families then I think the move is justified, but I'm a cynic and totally believe it will wind up being wasted on something nothing to do with the health and wellbeing of our children :nope:
> 
> The money 'saved' won't be saved, and isn't going to anyone else. It is (well apparently anyway) going to pay off the massive, massive debt that this country is in. The idea is we all have to make cuts to help pay back to the other countries and loans we owe as a whole country, so everybody will end up losing out in some way as we all have to pay for the way that the Labour government spent masses over the amount they actually had coming in from our taxes.
> 
> If you want to blame anyone, blame them for not being able to realise that money given out cannot be more than money coming in. Everybody in this country effectively each has a massive debt, I don't know what the exact figure is, but I seem to recall they estimate that effectively we each have a debt (each person of all ages) of about £3000. That pretty much means, assuming an 'average' family of 4, the government needs to get £12,000 from that family. *Thats extra money on top of the 'noral' amount of money they need frm each person for the day to day running of this country*. Now in my mind I'd rather they did it by taking £20 a week away over sometime than demanding that kind of money from each family in bigger chunks or in one go. And yes, unfortunately those that are seen as 'rich' are more likely to have to pay other peoples shares back for those that are apparently 'poor' and cannot pay it back themselves.
> 
> We have to all take responsibility for our country, so paying off that debt as quick as possible in order to save extra money being added from the interest rates on those loans really should be a collective aim. And yes I know that's an ideal, but if no-one takes pride and responsibility in their communities and this country and wants to try to build it back into something then its not surprising it falling to pieces as badly as it is at the moment.Click to expand...

yes the country has debts but yes also, the govt is going to play up those debts in a a massive propaganda piece to make us all believe that they are saving the country from Labour's mess. the recession was global, it wasn't specific to us... anyway thats going off topic, i'm mixed on where i stand with this move in child benefit. bit ridiculous that a family on 86k wont be penalised but one on 44k will be


----------



## FBbaby

I don't have an issue at all with my taxes going to people who work full-time that need extra help to be able to afford working full-time. Isn't what WTC was intended for? Childcare costs are incredible and very few people would be able to afford to work and pay for full-time childcare without support. During that time, those working gain more experience and one day, they will be the ones helping the others. I think this is perfectly fair.

What I have an issue with are those who believe that staying at home with their kids is their rights (or working under 30 hours a week). I don't see why I should support for them to do what all parent would wish to do (how many dads would love to take time off work to see their children grow up), when during that time, they are not doing anything to better themselves professionally! As for saying that they will get back to work after their child start nursery or school, that is assuming of course that they don't go on to have more children, which is what happens in most families.

Is it all the government's fault? Yes, of course, so I hope it is going to make radical changes in the system and tell people that they won't be benefits any longer for those who choose not to work. What I can forsee though is outrage at those who beleive being able to stay at home with their kids is their human rights...


----------



## aob1013

FBbaby said:


> I don't have an issue at all with my taxes going to people who work full-time that need extra help to be able to afford working full-time. Isn't what WTC was intended for? Childcare costs are incredible and very few people would be able to afford to work and pay for full-time childcare without support. During that time, those working gain more experience and one day, they will be the ones helping the others. I think this is perfectly fair.
> 
> What I have an issue with are those who believe that staying at home with their kids is their rights (or working under 30 hours a week). I don't see why I should support for them to do what all parent would wish to do (how many dads would love to take time off work to see their children grow up), when during that time, they are not doing anything to better themselves professionally! As for saying that they will get back to work after their child start nursery or school, that is assuming of course that they don't go on to have more children, which is what happens in most families.
> 
> *Is it all the government's fault? Yes, of course, so I hope it is going to make radical changes in the system and tell people that they won't be benefits any longer for those who choose not to work. What I can forsee though is outrage at those who beleive being able to stay at home with their kids is their human rights*...

I agree! I hope that so called 'right' is taken away.


----------



## mumoffive

> yes the country has debts but yes also, the govt is going to play up those debts in a a massive propaganda piece to make us all believe that they are saving the country from Labour's mess. the recession was global, it wasn't specific to us... anyway thats going off topic, i'm mixed on where i stand with this move in child benefit. bit ridiculous that a family on 86k wont be penalised but one on 44k will be

Well said. I totally agree. Of course they are doing this and quite frankly i am sick of this goverment putting all the blame on labour. It was global and the banks played their part.


----------



## MrsGlitz

For what it's worth, I don't think I have a right to stay at home, it's just apparently not a financially viable option. I am looking into it further though.


----------



## dom85

indy and lara said:


> xolily said:
> 
> 
> what do you mean i can't afford to stay at home with my child cos i'm claiming "benefits"? i CAN afford it, the government ALLOWS me to do so. are all these people who are slating it telling me they don't claim CTC or WTC? why would anyone in their right mind go back to work fulltime and miss out on their children, rather than take what the government offers and work parttime? it baffles me! it strikes me that the people who don't like it seem to be the people who couldn't afford to live if they worked part time and claimed CTC & WTC..that's not my fault :shrug: i'm sure if you could, you would. as i said before, it's a no brainer for me. i've worked fulltime (60-70 hours a week) since i was 16 (and had jobs previous to that from the age of 13!).. i'm by no means workshy or lazy and will go back to work fulltime once Laila is in nursery!
> 
> 
> 
> I am not slating you. I am stating my opinion that if you are claiming benefits in order to be a SAHM(and WTC and CTC are benefits) then you really cannot afford to stay at home. I am a SAHM but don't claim WTC or CTC so not all those who don't like it couldn't afford to do it themselves.
> 
> I think what a number of us are saying is that the Government should not be creating a situation where people are using benefits in order to stay off work with their LO. The benefits system was put in place in order to support the most vulnerable and needy in society. It is not designed to be a lifestyle choice. The tax system in not a saving scheme designed so that we can take some money out when we fancy it.Click to expand...

Do you not think that children are one of the most vulnerable and needy groups in society?

I'm really shocked by some of the responses here by Mother's, I would have thought that there would be a bit more compassion as we are all trying to do the best by our LO's.

Sorry, but I'm a single Mum, my little boy already doesn't have a Father in his life to guide him and show him love, there is no way that I will leave him for 40 hours a week with someone else to miss out on his Mother's love as well which is sooo important in the early years. If I was working full time then Brady would be in childcare for nearly 50 hours a week (allowing time for dropping off early to get to work), I would basically be waking him up, taking him to a childminder, bringing him home and putting him to bed for 5 days a week. Then I'd get to see him for the hours that he's awake on the 2 days of the weekend, as well as running a household single-handedly. 

So no, I didn't chose that option, I chose to work 16 hours a week, I'm still paying tax and national insurance, and yes I do get help from the government in order to feed my child and keep a roof over our heads, it's a lot more than what some people chose to do. I have no guilt for claiming what I do, I worked my arse off every day I could since I was 13 and I still work my arse off now, I dont think some of you appreciate other people's circumstances.


----------



## indy and lara

dom85 said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xolily said:
> 
> 
> what do you mean i can't afford to stay at home with my child cos i'm claiming "benefits"? i CAN afford it, the government ALLOWS me to do so. are all these people who are slating it telling me they don't claim CTC or WTC? why would anyone in their right mind go back to work fulltime and miss out on their children, rather than take what the government offers and work parttime? it baffles me! it strikes me that the people who don't like it seem to be the people who couldn't afford to live if they worked part time and claimed CTC & WTC..that's not my fault :shrug: i'm sure if you could, you would. as i said before, it's a no brainer for me. i've worked fulltime (60-70 hours a week) since i was 16 (and had jobs previous to that from the age of 13!).. i'm by no means workshy or lazy and will go back to work fulltime once Laila is in nursery!
> 
> 
> 
> I am not slating you. I am stating my opinion that if you are claiming benefits in order to be a SAHM(and WTC and CTC are benefits) then you really cannot afford to stay at home. I am a SAHM but don't claim WTC or CTC so not all those who don't like it couldn't afford to do it themselves.
> 
> I think what a number of us are saying is that the Government should not be creating a situation where people are using benefits in order to stay off work with their LO. The benefits system was put in place in order to support the most vulnerable and needy in society. It is not designed to be a lifestyle choice. The tax system in not a saving scheme designed so that we can take some money out when we fancy it.Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not think that children are one of the most vulnerable and needy groups in society?
> 
> I'm really shocked by some of the responses here by Mother's, I would have thought that there would be a bit more compassion as we are all trying to do the best by our LO's.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm a single Mum, my little boy already doesn't have a Father in his life to guide him and show him love, there is no way that I will leave him for 40 hours a week with someone else to miss out on his Mother's love as well which is sooo important in the early years. If I was working full time then Brady would be in childcare for nearly 50 hours a week (allowing time for dropping off early to get to work), I would basically be waking him up, taking him to a childminder, bringing him home and putting him to bed for 5 days a week. Then I'd get to see him for the hours that he's awake on the 2 days of the weekend, as well as running a household single-handedly.
> 
> So no, I didn't chose that option, I chose to work 16 hours a week, I'm still paying tax and national insurance, and yes I do get help from the government in order to feed my child and keep a roof over our heads, it's a lot more than what some people chose to do. I have no guilt for claiming what I do, I worked my arse off every day I could since I was 13 and I still work my arse off now, I dont think some of you appreciate other people's circumstances.Click to expand...

My husband sees his daughter for a similar amount of hours each day to those you describe. I understand that you are trying to do the best for your LO. Of course you are. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with benefits being used to enable people to stay at home. 

The OP was about the fact that CB s being stopped for people earning over £44k. These people are paying in an enormous amount of money to the tax system and are now getting nothing back to help with their children. At the same time as losing CB, they are losing any eligibility for tax credits and the higher rate tax band is about to fall by £1500 meaning even more tax and less take home pay. So yes, I do get fed up of people choosing to work 16 hours a week and top up their income with benefits while my OH works increasing hours for less and less income. People are of course going to take this option if it is available but my point is that the Government need to address the fact it is available.


----------



## FBbaby

dom85 said:


> If I was working full time then Brady would be in childcare for nearly 50 hours a week (allowing time for dropping off early to get to work), I would basically be waking him up, taking him to a childminder, bringing him home and putting him to bed for 5 days a week. Then I'd get to see him for the hours that he's awake on the 2 days of the weekend, as well as running a household single-handedly.
> 
> So no, I didn't chose that option, I chose to work 16 hours a week, I'm still paying tax and national insurance, and yes I do get help from the government in order to feed my child and keep a roof over our heads, it's a lot more than what some people chose to do. I have no guilt for claiming what I do, I worked my arse off every day I could since I was 13 and I still work my arse off now, I dont think some of you appreciate other people's circumstances.

I became a single mum working full-time when my eldest was 3 years old and my boy only 18 months, so yes I do appreciate how hard it was, but impossible? NO. I've done it and have no regrets. Of course in a perfect world I would have chosen to spend more time with them, but it wasn't an option for me to go on benefits. I make my life and deal with the consequences. I work with many single mums and yeah we do let it out how hard it is, exhaustion is our middle name, but we cope and our children are well adjusted. So yes, to me, single or not, choosing to go on benefits and stay at home is a choice.


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

Well I work 24 hours a week (3 full days) and receive the childcare element of CTC which pays 30% of the childcare bill, otherwise I would actually be making a loss by working (due to my expensive commute and the fact I was forced to take a pay cut, alternative would have been redundancy) So for me, benefits are making it viable for me to work full stop. I'd rather get help to work than get help to stay at home personally. At least when Ruby is in school we will not need any help at all.


----------



## mumoffive

FBbaby said:


> I don't have an issue at all with my taxes going to people who work full-time that need extra help to be able to afford working full-time. Isn't what WTC was intended for? Childcare costs are incredible and very few people would be able to afford to work and pay for full-time childcare without support. During that time, those working gain more experience and one day, they will be the ones helping the others. I think this is perfectly fair.
> 
> What I have an issue with are those who believe that staying at home with their kids is their rights (or working under 30 hours a week). I don't see why I should support for them to do what all parent would wish to do (how many dads would love to take time off work to see their children grow up), when during that time, they are not doing anything to better themselves professionally! As for saying that they will get back to work after their child start nursery or school, that is assuming of course that they don't go on to have more children, which is what happens in most families.
> 
> Is it all the government's fault? Yes, of course, so I hope it is going to make radical changes in the system and tell people that they won't be benefits any longer for those who choose not to work. What I can forsee though is outrage at those who beleive being able to stay at home with their kids is their human rights...

What an absolutely outraggeous opinion. I work jobshare and would absolutely love to stay at home with my kids. I think it should be everyones right to do so if they want to and believe that this is what is wrong with this country. Being a SAHM has no value in the society we live in and yet lets face it there is NOONE that can look after their children and meet the needs better than their parent! Unfortunately for me, its not an option however i am fortunate that my dh has changed his work pattern so that its either him or me that is a home with the kids. Personally, if we couldnt have done this, we would have had to have made sacrifices and large ones for one of us to stay at home. I am quite frankly shocked at this post! However, i do agree that i dont feel i should be the one to pay for others to be able to do it, while i cant. More should be given to SAHM instead of funding for childcare options as far as i am concerned.


----------



## FBbaby

I don't have any issues at all with SAHM who do so without relying on those who work to fund their choice. Don't you think ALL parents would prefer to spend more time with their children??? But if we all did, who would pay for this to happen?


----------



## mumoffive

FBbaby said:


> I don't have any issues at all with SAHM who do so without relying on those who work to fund their chose. Don't you think ALL parents would prefer to spend more time with their children??? But if we all did, who would pay for this to happen?

I agree, i think a lot of parents would love to stay at home and why on earth can it not be funded in the same way as it is for those putting their children into childcare..freeing up jobs for others that need them.


----------



## twiggy56

...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...


----------



## mumoffive

If you were earning 44k, your choices of what you spend it on would be vastly different from now. You may well be claiming for it after your larger mortgage, your bigger car etc. It is a very shortsighted attitude and btw, i dont earn that.amount but even i can appreciate that others have taken on commitments.


----------



## FBbaby

because those parents whose children go to nursery will bring a lot more financially to society in the long term, when their children are at school and don't need childcare any longer. SAHM have a much harder time, understandbly, to return to work, especially if they have more than one child and stay even longer without employment.


----------



## indy and lara

twiggy56 said:


> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...

You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.


----------



## venusrockstar

indy and lara said:


> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...

This is why people should learn to live within their means and not have to have the "bigger, better" of all things.


----------



## mumoffive

...but earning 44k is within their means! How do they know they are going to have something taken away from them years down the line! A totally pointless argument.


----------



## mumoffive

Child benefit has been around since 1977. I would never have envisaged it being taken away.


----------



## mumoffive

FBbaby said:


> because those parents whose children go to nursery will bring a lot more financially to society in the long term, when their children are at school and don't need childcare any longer. SAHM have a much harder time, understandbly, to return to work, especially if they have more than one child and stay even longer without employment.

What about the welfare of children being paramount? At the end of the day our children are the future! Nothing more important than investing it in that.


----------



## venusrockstar

With the way things are in today's society...layoffs, cutbacks etc..people may need to sacrifice certain things or give up things in order to live within their means. You can't depend on other people or think you are entitled.


----------



## FBbaby

I believe for many who would lose the benefits, the issue is not so much losing it but the fact that they are expected to do with less, whilst contributing for others who won't have to make a cut. 

Personally, I like the idea of a cap on benefits after two children, and single working mums expected to go back to work after their children have started school. This way, no one is denying anyone the chance to become a parent, nor to be with them until they start school but this way, it might stop those having more children because they are better off financially, and gives them an excuse never to go back to work. I will gladly give up my CB to support those who need help even though they are working full-time.


----------



## mumoffive

venusrockstar said:


> With the way things are in today's society...layoffs, cutbacks etc..people may need to sacrifice certain things or give up things in order to live within their means. You can't depend on other people or think you are entitled.

But it has been around since 1977 or thereabouts and people could not have preempted that!!! why should they have? They have factored cb in to their amount they have! Its too late for some!


----------



## venusrockstar

mumoffive said:


> venusrockstar said:
> 
> 
> With the way things are in today's society...layoffs, cutbacks etc..people may need to sacrifice certain things or give up things in order to live within their means. You can't depend on other people or think you are entitled.
> 
> But it has been around since 1977 or thereabouts and people could not have preempted that!!! why should they have? They have factored cb in to their amount they have! Its too late for some!Click to expand...

Some people have also been at a job for 25 years and then out of nowhere get layed off. Nothing is fair in life.


----------



## 24/7

Together OH and I earn around 40K , and once LO arrives this money will be very useful to us still. It is unfair to claim those earning around this amount are not living within there means if they still find CB useful. We live in a little two bedroom flat in the middle of nowhere as that is all we can afford, once we have paid all our bills, and run the two cars we need to as we live in the middle of nowhere and both work shifts, there isn't very much left. We don't have holidays or anything like that, and once LO arrives I will be going straight back to work, when we will pay almost £1000 a month in childcare, as we can't afford for me to give up work, it will just mean we have to be even tighter with what we spend. There will be very little CTC and WTC to help us out, and I'm not complaining, our childcare is our responsibility, as it was our choice to have a baby. I'd love to have been able to give up work, and previous to this OH earnt more money doing overtime, but with all the cuts to public services, there is now no overtime, so I can no longer have the option to be a SAHM, which is fair enough, there is nothing to say this is my right.


----------



## mumoffive

24/7 its a sad fact of life that it isnt your right and yet its your child..why shouldnt you be able to stay at home and look after it when its born. It should be your right to be able to do so.


----------



## venusrockstar

mumoffive said:


> 24/7 its a sad fact of life that it isnt your right and yet its your child..why shouldnt you be able to stay at home and look after it when its born. It should be your right to be able to do so.

I do agree with this statement, but unfortunately that's not how the world works :(


----------



## bambino156

mumoffive said:


> 24/7 its a sad fact of life that it isnt your right and yet its your child..why shouldnt you be able to stay at home and look after it when its born. It should be your right to be able to do so.

I agree it should be a parents right to be able to stay at home with thier child. But as we all know, these days very few mortgages are based on one persons earnings :nope:


----------



## clara123

I don't understand the argument that people earning £44k should learn to live within their means- shouldn't this be the case for everyone whether you earn £20 k or £44k? People earning £20k should also live within their means and not totally rely on benefits.

I do agree that if the benefits are there and you NEED them then you have every right to claim them but living on benefits should not be a life style choice- in my opinion benefits should purely be used as a temporary measure.


----------



## 24/7

mumoffive said:


> 24/7 its a sad fact of life that it isnt your right and yet its your child..why shouldnt you be able to stay at home and look after it when its born. It should be your right to be able to do so.

I absolutely agree, and sadly for me this will be my first and last child and I will never have this opportunity again. I wish things were different, I truely do, but we cannot rent a smaller property than we are in now, and there are no more cuts we can make. Thankfully working shifts, as gutting as there are and as difficult they will make childcare, it will allow some long weekend at home, which is more than some people have. 

It isn't just benefit cuts that are affecting peoples lives, cuts to public services etc are what are making this so difficult for us, we are all having to accept things we wish we didn't, but it's not just benefits, it's a much bigger thing than that.


----------



## indy and lara

venusrockstar said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...
> 
> This is why people should learn to live within their means and not have to have the "bigger, better" of all things.Click to expand...

We do live within our means ta. And always have done. As children when OH's Mum remembers trying to decide in the supermarket if she had enough money to buy a newspaper, when went shopping with my Mum when we had to take a calculator to make sure we didn't overspend, through uni when we did not have 2 brass farthings to rub together and worked to afford to even be there, through early graduate jobs when I used to give OH money to buy food when things were particularly tight and he lived far away from home, and so on. I know all about having no money and being really, really skint. 

This is not about me living within my means. We always have as I was brought up to believe that it was my responsibility to live within my means. Not buy things I could not afford and to regard luxuries as just that. People want lots of rights but what about the responsibilities which go alongside them? 

I have raised this point numerous times throughout this thread but for me this remains the crux of the matter regarding the cuts to CB. Please tell me how it is fair that OH and I will no longer get CB as we are a single earner household earning over £44k but neighbours and others in households with incomes of up to £87k will continue to get CB? We pay out more and more money each month and this will increase again in April next year as the tax threshold is being lowered. Honestly, I am not sure why people think that those who are affected by this are going to all turn round and say that it is fine that we continue to pay more and more into the system and receive nothing in return.


----------



## MrsGlitz

I don't think that anyone thinks it's a fair way of doing things at all.

I though the tax threshold was being raised? I'm sure in the emergency budget in June/July they said that the threshold will gradually increase to £10k?


----------



## LPF

There is an interesting article in the paper today by a political writer who thinks the whole child benefit cut is a rouse just like inheritance tax only being paid by millionaires was 3 years ago.

Conservatives used inheritance tax to gain popularity but then when it came to it used the coalition as an excuse not to have to do it. The writer thinks the conservatives are using the child benfit issue as a softner so when they massivly cut benefits and stop them entirely for people who decide not to work rather than can't find a job, the conservatives can say they have targetting all areas of society but in reality, when 2013 comes along, they will make a big song and dance about having saved the economy and that they won't have to cut child benefit now as they've done so well! But does agree they will cap it based on age and for 2 children.

Not my opinion, just what I read today however it could explain why they made a sudden announcement 2.5 yrs before it happens and why Osbourne and Cameron keep glossing over it.

My DH is just over the threshold for upper tax rate (which is around 37K - not the 44K they keep banging on about - thats what they propose it will be in 2013 I presume) and i'm way below it, so we will loose out. But i've never claimed it (first child on the way) so I won't miss what I don't have.

However, we are both in the public service so we've both had pay freezes, we both will have to pay more into pensions and with inflation this will be quite a pay cut. People think earning this much must give us loads of money but it really doesn't. 2k nearly (between us) goes on tax, NI, pension and student loan repayments before we even get our money and we are always overdrawn and the only thing we spend money on other than bills is food and petrol and our one indulgance - Sky!! 

However, we have never claimed for anything, even when I was unemployed because i've never felt I was that desperate. I do agree we should all live within our means as someone earlier said but that also goes for all walks of life. You earn those means and don't rely on anyone else. The government and benefits are not optional if you fancy living your life like that and thankfully - I don't think this will be a choice for many in the coming months in the conservatives get their way.


----------



## indy and lara

MrsGlitz said:


> I don't think that anyone thinks it's a fair way of doing things at all.
> 
> I though the tax threshold was being raised? I'm sure in the emergency budget in June/July they said that the threshold will gradually increase to £10k?

It is being raised at the lower end and lowered at the 40% band. Meaning that at the higher end you will not benefit from the raise.


----------



## MrsGlitz

indy and lara said:


> MrsGlitz said:
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone thinks it's a fair way of doing things at all.
> 
> I though the tax threshold was being raised? I'm sure in the emergency budget in June/July they said that the threshold will gradually increase to £10k?
> 
> It is being raised at the lower end and lowered at the 40% band. Meaning that at the higher end you will not benefit from the raise.Click to expand...

Oh I see. I think that's unfair. Although I am a low earner I don't agree with the high tax. But I realise that money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## indy and lara

MrsGlitz said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsGlitz said:
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone thinks it's a fair way of doing things at all.
> 
> I though the tax threshold was being raised? I'm sure in the emergency budget in June/July they said that the threshold will gradually increase to £10k?
> 
> It is being raised at the lower end and lowered at the 40% band. Meaning that at the higher end you will not benefit from the raise.Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I see. I think that's unfair. Although I am a low earner I don't agree with the high tax. But I realise that money has to come from somewhere.Click to expand...

Part of why I am so peeved by the whole thing. The cuts for us are coming left, right and centre over the next wee while and they are only the ones we all know about so far.


----------



## fairy1984

I think for all those people saying that they are entitled to the benefits therefore they are taking them and not working as they're better off that way then they should think about what would happen to the country if everyone had this attitude. what about if everyone thought that they'd use the governments money and not work? where would the money come from to fund all the mums out there that didnt work? it wouldnt work!! it needs dads earning in the higher tax bracket or mums going back to work to fund benefits.

all tax payers fund CB and higher rate tax payers contribute that little bit more...

I have to say, why are they only targeting people earning 44K or more? did you go on holiday this year? if the answer is yes then you too can "afford" to give up £20 per week that is CB! my point is does CB mean the difference between you making ends meet and not? 

the difference between people making ends meet or not isnt down to what tax band they're in but many many factors including the area they live in/employment opportunities/housing costs... basically living costs which vary greatly in this country.


----------



## twiggy56

indy and lara said:


> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...

Excuse me?! I am telling you now...*I would not* be filling out a form for CB if I earned 44k!! Who are you to tell me what I would and wouldnt do?!

We live by our means and are totally happy, we dont have expensive things, we dont go on holidays, we dont have savings, we dont eat out or have extravagances now and again. We live by what my OH earns...as thats what we've got. If we earned 44k and chose to have a bigger car, more holidays etc...then we wouldnt expect CB to pay for it?!!


----------



## 24/7

fairy1984 said:


> I think for all those people saying that they are entitled to the benefits therefore they are taking them and not working as they're better off that way then they should think about what would happen to the country if everyone had this attitude. what about if everyone thought that they'd use the governments money and not work? where would the money come from to fund all the mums out there that didnt work? it wouldnt work!! it needs dads earning in the higher tax bracket or mums going back to work to fund benefits.
> 
> all tax payers fund CB and higher rate tax payers contribute that little bit more...
> 
> I have to say, why are they only targeting people earning 44K or more? did you go on holiday this year? if the answer is yes then you too can "afford" to give up £20 per week that is CB! my point is does CB mean the difference between you making ends meet and not?
> 
> the difference between people making ends meet or not isnt down to what tax band they're in but many many factors including the area they live in/employment opportunities/housing costs... basically living costs which vary greatly in this country.

Absolutely agree, I always feel harsh when I say things like this, but I entirely agree!! :thumbup: I don't believe having a child is a right, and that it is my job to foot the bill for those on benefits who decide it is there right to have 10 children and never work, whilst I have to work full time, and still not be able to give my LO a sibling. I am not including genuine people who need benefits at all, that is what they are there for, but it drives me insane when huge families pop up moaning about there small houses in comparison to their family size, well I'd love one of the brand new 5 bedroom council houses that have just been built round the corner to me, but guess what, I can't have one, life isn't fair, and everyone needs to realise this. It is nobodys right to be given everything without doing anything, we all have to work, rich, poor and everyone in between, and those that choose not to should not be allowed everything, whilse those who work hard or not even entitled to £20 CB, when they pay a huge amount of tax. But life isn't fair, and it never will be, we all have to accept it, rich, poor and everyone in between....


----------



## MrsGlitz

Most people are actually better off working. It currently appears that I am not. I'm not returning to work to break even and not be able to contribute to the running of my own home. Once the Tax Credits office re-opens I have a better chance of finding out properly if I have done my maths right! And I wouldn't need to claim for a while anyway as I will be made redundant when I go back if I don't find a new role in the company. I would then hope to find a part time job.


----------



## indy and lara

twiggy56 said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me?! I am telling you now...*I would not* be filling out a form for CB if I earned 44k!! Who are you to tell me what I would and wouldnt do?!
> 
> We live by our means and are totally happy, we dont have expensive things, we dont go on holidays, we dont have savings, we dont eat out or have extravagances now and again. We live by what my OH earns...as thats what we've got. If we earned 44k and chose to have a bigger car, more holidays etc...then we wouldnt expect CB to pay for it?!!Click to expand...

 I did not tell you what you would do. I was responding to your post. I was also not the only person who made this remark so you could maybe direct your shouting at them too. 

What I said was that until you are in that position you cannot be sure how you would react. We all think we know how we would live our life in someone else's shoes but until you are there it is simply hearsay and conjecture. I would like to think that if it was better for me to only work 16 hours a week and claim benefits that I would still choose to work FT anyway. But who knows for sure?


----------



## twiggy56

indy and lara said:


> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me?! I am telling you now...*I would not* be filling out a form for CB if I earned 44k!! Who are you to tell me what I would and wouldnt do?!
> 
> We live by our means and are totally happy, we dont have expensive things, we dont go on holidays, we dont have savings, we dont eat out or have extravagances now and again. We live by what my OH earns...as thats what we've got. If we earned 44k and chose to have a bigger car, more holidays etc...then we wouldnt expect CB to pay for it?!!Click to expand...
> 
> I did not tell you what you would do. I was responding to your post. I was also not the only person who made this remark so you could maybe direct your shouting at them too.
> 
> What I said was that until you are in that position you cannot be sure how you would react. We all think we know how we would live our life in someone else's shoes but until you are there it is simply hearsay and conjecture. I would like to think that if it was better for me to only work 16 hours a week and claim benefits that I would still choose to work FT anyway. But who knows for sure?Click to expand...

Yet again you are telling me what to do? Telling me to 'shout' at others? I will direct my response at you, as YOU quoted me specifically...?

I _am_ sure what I would do, it is ingrained into my morals and how I was brought up....and how I have lived my lifetime so far. That is all my post was, MY opinion...I dont see why you felt the need to quote it and tell me I cant be sure of my own opinion?

I dont feel the need to justify it any further, so i'l leave it at 'its what I, personally, would do'


----------



## aliss

I'm not in the UK.

Just wondering, what are childcare costs like for you guys? Out here, depending on the province, it can be anywhere from $60/day to $7/day (yes, $7!!! In Quebec). $7/day daycare was introduced because of a falling birth rate in the province and as an incentive for women to not fear working and having more children.


----------



## cb1

aliss said:


> I'm not in the UK.
> 
> Just wondering, what are childcare costs like for you guys? Out here, depending on the province, it can be anywhere from $60/day to $7/day (yes, $7!!! In Quebec). $7/day daycare was introduced because of a falling birth rate in the province and as an incentive for women to not fear working and having more children.

It varies from place to place, but we'll be paying £35 a day, so just over £9k a year when I go back to work. There are schemes to help though - working tax credits can pay upto 80% of the cost depending on circumstance, and some companies run a childcare voucher scheme where money is deducted from your wages before tax to pay for childcare.


----------



## cb1

Twiggy56, I'll tell you what to do - you need to chill out a bit! All she was saying is that it's hard to know what you would do in different circumstances, like the old saying you should never judge a person til you've walked a mile in their shoes...


----------



## cb1

There was an interesting arrival on the news this morning about this saying that households will be asked to continue claiming CB and letters will be sent to all higher rate tax payers to ask if anyone in their household claims CB, if so their tax code will be changed to recoup the money. Seems odd that they'll run it on an honesty system? Surely it would make more sense to link it to CTCs which are already means tested?


----------



## pip holder

For people suggesting that those earning £44k should 'live within their means' and have had the foresight to exclude a 30 year old benefit as part of their incoming wage, are they also expecting those people on a low wage to budget without WTC or CTC which could easily be whipped away too? Because like it or not - it is essentially the same thing. 

Oh and FWIW - I don't earn anything like that amount like but am I suppose comfortable now - I always envisaged having saving accounts and loads of holidays - instead I have crippled myself with a mortgage :haha: my fault? Entirely, just pointing out that until it happened, I would have sworn blind I would never do it :flower:

Lets keep the discussion friendly eh :hugs:


----------



## melorablack

Something like this was always going to happen and especially with the conservatives in power, it's funny how shocked some people are at the news.


----------



## twiggy56

cb1 said:


> Twiggy56, I'll tell you what to do - you need to chill out a bit! All she was saying is that it's hard to know what you would do in different circumstances, like the old saying you should never judge a person til you've walked a mile in their shoes...

](*,) walk a mile in mine.


----------



## 24/7

melorablack said:


> Something like this was always going to happen and especially with the conservatives in power, it's funny how shocked some people are at the news.

No suprise to me, we need a benefits reform, just a shame it has hit those who do work first, but I know eventually it has to change at the other end too, and once again I will feel my vote was correct and worthwhile, I voted for change and that's what's happening....


----------



## indy and lara

twiggy56 said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me?! I am telling you now...*I would not* be filling out a form for CB if I earned 44k!! Who are you to tell me what I would and wouldnt do?!
> 
> We live by our means and are totally happy, we dont have expensive things, we dont go on holidays, we dont have savings, we dont eat out or have extravagances now and again. We live by what my OH earns...as thats what we've got. If we earned 44k and chose to have a bigger car, more holidays etc...then we wouldnt expect CB to pay for it?!!Click to expand...
> 
> I did not tell you what you would do. I was responding to your post. I was also not the only person who made this remark so you could maybe direct your shouting at them too.
> 
> What I said was that until you are in that position you cannot be sure how you would react. We all think we know how we would live our life in someone else's shoes but until you are there it is simply hearsay and conjecture. I would like to think that if it was better for me to only work 16 hours a week and claim benefits that I would still choose to work FT anyway. But who knows for sure?Click to expand...
> 
> Yet again you are telling me what to do? Telling me to 'shout' at others? I will direct my response at you, as YOU quoted me specifically...?
> 
> I _am_ sure what I would do, it is ingrained into my morals and how I was brought up....and how I have lived my lifetime so far. That is all my post was, MY opinion...I dont see why you felt the need to quote it and tell me I cant be sure of my own opinion?
> 
> I dont feel the need to justify it any further, so i'l leave it at 'its what I, personally, would do'Click to expand...

And here we go again. I was not the only person who commented on your statement hence the fact that I do not think that there is a reason to single my posts out. There is no reason for aggressive responses- that is not how I responded to you. And I didn't tell you what to do. But hey, I guess that is why these threads go down the tubes.


----------



## mumoffive

OMG what is wrong with society?
Of course it is everybodies right to have a child. It is everybodies right to provide the best care for that child and the best care starts with the care provided by parents. I cannot believe that some people are suggesting it is not someones right to have a child. Of course it is...that is the primary purpose of being alive! Without children we would have noone to look after and take care of the world when we are older!!
I agree with the newspaper....i think the tories will use this as a ploy so that they will look like the 'heroes' of the situation in the end. I have a long memory and am old enough to remember their antics the first time round and sadly this sounds exactly like their tactics.


----------



## gills8752

twiggy56 said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me?! I am telling you now...*I would not* be filling out a form for CB if I earned 44k!! Who are you to tell me what I would and wouldnt do?!
> 
> We live by our means and are totally happy, we dont have expensive things, we dont go on holidays, we dont have savings, we dont eat out or have extravagances now and again. We live by what my OH earns...as thats what we've got. If we earned 44k and chose to have a bigger car, more holidays etc...then we wouldnt expect CB to pay for it?!!Click to expand...

I'm not trying to start a fight but I have recently lived in a wide range of shoe. 5 years ago, my husbands earnings were 13k. Now my husband earns 40k. We claim CB. You really really really cannot say for definate that you would not claim something when you have not lived in those shoes. Yes it may be your morals not to claim but when it comes down to it you just might. I'm of the same opinion - I don't claim WTC or CTC because I can live without it and I dont want to bankrupt our country more but I do CB as we need that extra to buy food at the end of the month.

(not directed at you twiggy) I am getting quite annoyed with all these people saying that 44k is a lot of money and wishing they could earn that and how they'd be living the life it they did. It isn't that much of a difference to a lower wage. It gets taxed the hell out of it. 
When I earnt 14k I got nearly a 1k take home pay - at 40k my husband get 2k take home pay. You tell me how that equates to being loaded and not having the need to claim CB? The wages nearly triple yet take home pay only doubles!!


----------



## moomoo

This thread is really starting to go round in circles now! :roll:

Blame the system, not the people!! 

We all want what is best for our children at the end of the day! :thumbup:


----------



## mumoffive

moomoo said:


> This thread is really starting to go round in circles now! :roll:
> 
> Blame the system, not the people!!
> 
> We all want what is best for our children at the end of the day! :thumbup:

I agree, and posted this some time ago. I think we should just let it 
go now. x


----------



## coccyx

Don't agree that everyone does have the right to have children . Can not rely on government ( in effect taxes) to provide for everyones children.With rights come responsibilities.


----------



## fairy1984

coccyx said:


> Don't agree that everyone does have the right to have children . Can not rely on government ( in effect taxes) to provide for everyones children.With rights come responsibilities.

i agree. my childcare costs would be £2400 for full time nursery if i had a second child. not worth me working to cover it. so if i gave up work my oh cant afford to pay all the bills without my income and we wouldnt get cb. if my oh also gave up work then we could claim benefits and get the government to apy for it all for us but who would foot that bill...where does that money actually come from!!!think about it...

people that think 44k is alot and we should be able to afford to give cb up. well you should try working in an area where wages are higher but the cost of living is disproportionally even higher


----------



## kirmal12

GB has one of the biggest welfare deficits in the world, it has to be cut. Why does everyone think labour is the answer to everything? Gordon Brown was one of the most unpopular PM's ever, they were voted out because the country needed change and change we are getting!!. Labour would have eventually done the same thing or just carried on burying there head in the sand and eventually left are children to deal with it all.
Somebody earlier said benefit used to be called charity would every be quick to claim them then?


----------



## 24/7

coccyx said:


> Don't agree that everyone does have the right to have children . Can not rely on government ( in effect taxes) to provide for everyones children.With rights come responsibilities.

Absolutely!! Why should taxes foot the bill of others wanting large familes, which then means they need large houses etc, when those that pay huge amounts of tax then cannot afford to have the families they wish to?! Nothing in this life is anyones right, let alone having posessions or children they cannot afford to pay for themselves, too many people thinking everything is their right is making the economical problems worse!!

We wanted a child, and we worked hard to put ourselves into a position where we could afford it, however we cannot afford another, and I will be straight back to full time work so that we can continue to afford it, despite my OH's slightly above average wage.


----------



## AimeeM

There are some people unfortunate enough to be born in to poverty so they now also have the right to have a family taken away from them? Utter nonsence.

Life is just that, life. It's not about money or cars, houses. It's about being born to reproduce. It's human nature.


----------



## fairy1984

AimeeM said:


> There are some people unfortunate enough to be born in to poverty so they now also have the right to have a family taken away from them? Utter nonsence.
> 
> Life is just that, life. It's not about money or cars, houses. It's about being born to reproduce. It's human nature.

of course there are, however taking CB away from higher tax payers doesnt mean that those people get more money and help them out more?

Those people in poverty I am assuming couldnt live without benefits (i have taken this as an assumption based on what you have said, please correct me if i'm wrong). I am happy that in a few years time when my OH will hopefully earn over the threshold for CB that we will get charged a higher rate for tax for some of our earnings and that should contribute to the government and some of which goes to people who are genuinely in need of help. I am not happy for it to go to people who make a choice not to work when they could. There is a big difference.

But if my tax is going to people that need help but i'm left not being able to afford a second child myself because the government are taking away MY lifeline then how is this fair? 

How is it that if i had two children that I would have less than nothing left at the end of the month fair? should i move to a cheaper area? sell my house and move to a smaller one? (please not i have a small end of terrace and thats all we could afford) get a less well paid job so i am entitled to benefits? 

its in MY human nature to want to improve myself therefore i'm not going to do that


----------



## kirmal12

:thumbup:


fairy1984 said:


> AimeeM said:
> 
> 
> There are some people unfortunate enough to be born in to poverty so they now also have the right to have a family taken away from them? Utter nonsence.
> 
> Life is just that, life. It's not about money or cars, houses. It's about being born to reproduce. It's human nature.
> 
> of course there are, however taking CB away from higher tax payers doesnt mean that those people get more money and help them out more?
> 
> Those people in poverty I am assuming couldnt live without benefits (i have taken this as an assumption based on what you have said, please correct me if i'm wrong). I am happy that in a few years time when my OH will hopefully earn over the threshold for CB that we will get charged a higher rate for tax for some of our earnings and that should contribute to the government and some of which goes to people who are genuinely in need of help. I am not happy for it to go to people who make a choice not to work when they could. There is a big difference.
> 
> But if my tax is going to people that need help but i'm left not being able to afford a second child myself because the government are taking away MY lifeline then how is this fair?
> 
> How is it that if i had two children that I would have less than nothing left at the end of the month fair? should i move to a cheaper area? sell my house and move to a smaller one? (please not i have a small end of terrace and thats all we could afford) get a less well paid job so i am entitled to benefits?
> 
> its in MY human nature to want to improve myself therefore i'm not going to do thatClick to expand...

:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## AimeeM

I am talking about people in real poverty, really poor parts of Africa, India. 

I agree with the whole situation not being fair. I said before that it (CB) should be kept for everyone or scrapped for everyone.

I do however think that it can not be said that you shouldn't have kids if you 'can't afford'. We all have the right to reproduce and i believe no man made circumstance should take that away. 

Most of us manage on what we get and some don't but i think that is more a case of poor managment of money not not having enough.

There are people out there that have millions and lots of children. What if they lost their millions? What would happen to their children then? They would survive because they would find a way because thats life,


----------



## AimeeM

I am not on about people choosing to stay at home i am on about people in general, the human race. I am not trying to argue as i don't have a preferance to either side of the debate.

I totally get the unfairness to higher earners and if i earned that i too would be pissed off at all the tax i pay and getting nothing back!

I just look at it as it is only money but that is my way. I find family important not money and i know we would survive with out it because it is a case of having to.


----------



## Missy86

I dont think that the people you see in the paper who has 6 kids, a big house paid for them and get more in benifits than we earn should be allowed so many kids.

We can only afford 1 child so thats what we will do


----------



## twiggy56

My father worked his way up from nothing, his family had nothing, holes in his school shoes when he was a boy he now has a company worth millions, he EARNT it. Does he feel he is entitled to claim £20 a week CB just because he gets taxed to high hell? NO. And for the record, small companies get taxed ridiculous amounts. Its his childrens inheritance and when he sells the company dont you doubt the tax man will be taking a huge chunk of it away...does he claim CB, NO. Because its not a case of put loads in, get something out...

then on the flip-side, we live on one wage...I look after out daughter and my OH works his arse off...we dont have much but we actually are ON what the government deems suitable to live off...so we could just sit at home and get the exact same monthly wage as what we would on benefits but my OH works because its IN OUR MORALS. 

You say I cant be sure, but I have seen both sides and I know that in my parents circumstance they never claimed a penny. Not because they couldnt but because it would be taking it when what they had was satisfactory to live off. 

The government has done this for a reason. So as you may disagree with my very first statement. Im sorry but the government obviously agree with it...it has been passed. I feel comfortable with my statement knowing that the majority of government feel the same.


----------



## AimeeM

Twiggs love Abigails new pic :cloud9: she looks so grown up!


----------



## twiggy56

aww thanks hun :cloud9:

its 'cheeky face' :haha:

How cute is Nathan!! Why are our babies growing up so fast?! We miss you on fb btw! :cry:


----------



## kirmal12

twiggy56 said:


> My father worked his way up from nothing, his family had nothing, holes in his school shoes when he was a boy he now has a company worth millions, he EARNT it. Does he feel he is entitled to claim £20 a week CB just because he gets taxed to high hell? NO. And for the record, small companies get taxed ridiculous amounts. Its his childrens inheritance and when he sells the company dont you doubt the tax man will be taking a huge chunk of it away...does he claim CB, NO. Because its not a case of put loads in, get something out...
> 
> then on the flip-side, we live on one wage...I look after out daughter and my OH works his arse off...we dont have much but we actually are ON what the government deems suitable to live off...so we could just sit at home and get the exact same monthly wage as what we would on benefits but my OH works because its IN OUR MORALS.
> 
> You say I cant be sure, but I have seen both sides and I know that in my parents circumstance they never claimed a penny. Not because they couldnt but because it would be taking it when what they had was satisfactory to live off.
> 
> The government has done this for a reason. So as you may disagree with my very first statement. Im sorry but the government obviously agree with it...it has been passed. I feel comfortable with my statement knowing that the majority of government feel the same.

Said in such a better way than i ever could but i agree 100%, your situation sounds exactly like mine.:thumbup:


----------



## keldac

I have actually asked for this thread to be closed. It seems to be going round and getting more personal and nastier with each circle it does! This is not directed at any one person I just think its time to close.
We all have different view points and each persons circumstances are different so who are we to judge one another :flower: :hugs:


----------



## kirmal12

keldac said:


> I have actually asked for this thread to be closed. It seems to be going round and getting more personal and nastier with each circle it does! This is not directed at any one person I just think its time to close.
> We all have different view points and each persons circumstances are different so who are we to judge one another :flower: :hugs:

I agree political threads always do go round in circles they always will. But i don't see anyone getting nasty:shrug:. Everyone has a right to a opinion don't they? weather you like that opinion is another story:thumbup: Nobody has been personal to any member or have i missed something:dohh:


----------



## MrsQ

Hi all.
I will add my bit be it late or too late lol.

Basically me and my husband work in the public sector him a copper and me for the london ambulance. Our wages wont go up with inflation and he has had his hours cut which in a way is a good thing cos he sees our son more but bad as we are REALLY struggling.

Sometimes like last year he earnt over 44 in overtime when his basic is 30k. this wasnt requested overtime this is overtime that sometimes he wont come home to me as he has so many prisoners in. We would go weeks without seeing oneanother sometimes as our work load was huge.

Now I am part time and we cant afford to pay a nanny or let LO go nursery and why should we pay someone else to look after our child when you dont know who will get their hands on him!

I doubt he will get over 44k which is good but i need to add that 44k really isnt much money if you live in london or surrey.

We pay £950 for rent, £170 for council tax then you bump on water, elec and gas without petrol money for work and trains. 
We never end up being able to go out as a couple as we havent the money and that £80 a month sometimes sees us through.

I really dont think the government has through this one through as someone earning 44k in londond wont see as much of that money if they lived somewhere like wales for instance.

IDIOTS they are pure IDIOTS!


----------



## AimeeM

I agree MrsQ, the cost of living down south sounds so high. A nice three bedroom semi here (Yorkshire) is around £550 a month in the best areas!


----------



## moomoo

AimeeM said:


> I agree MrsQ, the cost of living down south sounds so high. A nice three bedroom semi here (Yorkshire) is around £550 a month in the best areas!

Wow! I want to move to Yorkshire! That would get you a 2 bed flat in a crap area here!!!!


----------



## AimeeM

moomoo said:


> AimeeM said:
> 
> 
> I agree MrsQ, the cost of living down south sounds so high. A nice three bedroom semi here (Yorkshire) is around £550 a month in the best areas!
> 
> Wow! I want to move to Yorkshire! That would get you a 2 bed flat in a crap area here!!!!Click to expand...

I know it's great, Yorkshire rocks :D


----------



## WW1

We moved from Islington in London (where we rented) to just outside Huddersfield in Yorkshire. We bought a 2 bedroomed house for about 2/3 the cost of our rent in London. Our standard of living is higher without doubt. 

When I moved north I took a 4k pay cut but was still better off. 44k buys you far less in the major cities for sure - house prices are ludicrous in some parts of the country. 

I agree - Yorkshire rocks!!


----------



## kirmal12

I'd move to Yorkshire in a heartbeat, i'm from Yorkshire stock (Mirfield). Gods own country as they say.


----------



## MrsGlitz

DH and I have both discussed that we would move up North in a heartbeat. We pay £155 a week for a pokey 2 Bed flat with a tiny galley style kitchen, which is infuriating to cook in (even more so as DH is a chef and used to lots of space hence he rarely does our cooking!). We don't have the space to buy Harry much in the way of play gyms and toys but luckily at the moment that's not too much of an issue. We can't afford anywhere bigger.


----------



## Justagirlxx

If everyone went to work that is able to then you all would be taxed a hell of a lot less, meaning you would be able to support yourselves with a full time wage. The fact that people are saying they can't afford to go back to work is the huge problem here. I think its a major flaw in the system. I am by no means an economics expert but I think its common sense to see that the entire reason so many people are on benefits is because of the taxes you all pay.


----------



## jenny82

twiggy56 said:


> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twiggy56 said:
> 
> 
> ...if I earnt 44k...I wouldnt be filling out a claim form for £20 CB a week...
> 
> You cannot say that for sure. You would have outgoings just like everyone else. You would have a mortgage to pay and bills like everyone else does too. And maybe you would get a bit fed up paying 40% tax into a system which takes a lot from you while not giving anything back to support your children.Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me?! I am telling you now...*I would not* be filling out a form for CB if I earned 44k!! Who are you to tell me what I would and wouldnt do?!
> 
> We live by our means and are totally happy, we dont have expensive things, we dont go on holidays, we dont have savings, we dont eat out or have extravagances now and again. We live by what my OH earns...as thats what we've got. If we earned 44k and chose to have a bigger car, more holidays etc...then we wouldnt expect CB to pay for it?!!Click to expand...

A little bit naive there...

Its great that you don't have luxuries, don't have holidays, don't eat out and are totally happy. 

We earn over that between us but still have very little left at the end of each month. I haven't been on a holiday in 4 years, we have a very sensible cheap to run car, have a mortgage, 2 student loans to pay, a loan we got to replace the bathroom & kitchen (a necessity not a luxury) and credit cards (which fair enough, we shouldn't have run up but try telling that to two students?).

As it is though, I do like luxuries, like a meal out with my family, a trip to the cinema etc (as it what makes us HUMAN!) and if the CB helps out a little bit to pay for things like that...shoot me... :dohh:


----------



## Nickij

My husband and I have luckily been in work since we have been 16 years old. In all that time we have never once claimed any benefits. It does pee me off that we pay hundreds of pounds in taxes to lay abouts that can be bothered to go out to work. 

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that everyone on benefits are layabouts that can't be bothered to work (I have a couple of friends that are single mothers and it would be just about impossible for them to work atm - but they worked up until they had kids and intend to go back to work once the kids are at school), but there are many of them.

My husband earns just under 44k and I can tell you that without my income on top we would not survie. We live in a modest 1960's 3 bedroom terraced house, kitchen, front room, 3 bed and 1 bathroom. Nothing fancy but a good size family home. With the mortgage and essential bills (council tax, electricity, car insurance, water etc) that comes to nearly £2k (I have left out bills such as sky, internet, and mobile phones etc and debt that aren't "essential bill"), so that would leave £500 of my OH salary left to cover food, petrol, nappies, and other adhoc expenses that come up. Ok we would get by but by no means is that living a life of luxury.

So for the goverment to cut it when one parents is on 44k to me is wrong. If we hadn't of that that £80 a month when I was on SMP we really would have struggled. Fair enough when we are both earning we get by fine without it. So I do think the goverments decision is a bit ****.

What really annoying me though is how bad job seekers allowance is - for those that have been made redundant. If you work every day for 10 years, pay all your taxes, then get made redundant - you have to then survive on about £70 a week. Its outrageous when there are thousands of other ppl getting hundreds of ££ of benefit a week. Personally I think JSA should be higher for the first few months when you get made redunant if you have been in work for say over 2 years. Then its reduced to the normal rate after say 6 months.


----------



## AimeeM

kirmal12 said:


> I'd move to Yorkshire in a heartbeat, i'm from Yorkshire stock (Mirfield). Gods own country as they say.

I'm Huddersfield too here!


----------



## twiggy56

jenny82 said:


> I do like luxuries, like a meal out with my family, a trip to the cinema etc (as it what makes us HUMAN!) and if the CB helps out a little bit to pay for things like that...shoot me... :dohh:

this attitude is why it has been cut.


----------



## jenny82

twiggy56 said:


> jenny82 said:
> 
> 
> I do like luxuries, like a meal out with my family, a trip to the cinema etc (as it what makes us HUMAN!) and if the CB helps out a little bit to pay for things like that...shoot me... :dohh:
> 
> this attitude is why it has been cut.Click to expand...

No I'm not saying that. My CB goes on my LO - most of my money goes on my LO. But the fact that you don't go on holidays, go out, have a nice car (who does?) - you're saying it like this is something to be proud of, it seems to me anyway,

I like that I like going out for meals, I like that I'm interested in travel (though I don't get to do it), its what makes us human. And for me not to do anything like that - well I couldn't imagine it. Its why I'm working damn hard now for our future. I want a *life*, not just live my life.


----------



## cb1

What I don't understand is the figure of 44k. Higher rate tax is current paid over 37k, surely keeping this at the same level would help - if they're making cuts why raise the higher tax threshold?? To me CB is either a universal benifit, or it's means teasted and should only be paid to those who can't survive without it. Having an honesty system based on single earner income is crazy and incredibly unfair IMO!


----------



## kirmal12

AimeeM said:


> kirmal12 said:
> 
> 
> I'd move to Yorkshire in a heartbeat, i'm from Yorkshire stock (Mirfield). Gods own country as they say.
> 
> I'm Huddersfield too here!Click to expand...

Very jealous!:growlmad:, Me or my sisters weren't born there but from my Mum and Dad upwards to the 15th century were all from Mirfield/Huddersfield/Dewsbury. We somewhere along the line have connections to the Bronte sisters:haha:

I always class myself as a Yorkshire lass because my blood is :happydance:. OH is a Londoner but would love to live in Yorkshire, lucky you:cloud9:


----------



## indy and lara

cb1 said:


> What I don't understand is the figure of 44k. Higher rate tax is current paid over 37k, surely keeping this at the same level would help - if they're making cuts why raise the higher tax threshold?? To me CB is either a universal benifit, or it's means teasted and should only be paid to those who can't survive without it. Having an honesty system based on single earner income is crazy and incredibly unfair IMO!

I think that it has to do with tax free allowances. You get around £6400 tax free so that added to £37k takes you to around the £44k mark. Not sure of the ins and outs though. :wacko:


----------



## cb1

indy and lara said:


> cb1 said:
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is the figure of 44k. Higher rate tax is current paid over 37k, surely keeping this at the same level would help - if they're making cuts why raise the higher tax threshold?? To me CB is either a universal benifit, or it's means teasted and should only be paid to those who can't survive without it. Having an honesty system based on single earner income is crazy and incredibly unfair IMO!
> 
> I think that it has to do with tax free allowances. You get around £6400 tax free so that added to £37k takes you to around the £44k mark. Not sure of the ins and outs though. :wacko:Click to expand...

That makes sense! I clearly don't earn my wages as an accountant! :dohh:


----------



## MrsQ

moomoo said:


> AimeeM said:
> 
> 
> I agree MrsQ, the cost of living down south sounds so high. A nice three bedroom semi here (Yorkshire) is around £550 a month in the best areas!
> 
> Wow! I want to move to Yorkshire! That would get you a 2 bed flat in a crap area here!!!!Click to expand...

wow do u know to buy a garage in london ur looking at 175k!!!!


----------



## Gingerspice

I think I read its actually based on the NI contribution classification as that is 44,000 for the upper limit. That tax free element is already included in the 37000 bit. Not sure though


----------



## Lucy Lu

twiggy56 said:


> My father worked his way up from nothing, his family had nothing, holes in his school shoes when he was a boy he now has a company worth millions, he EARNT it. Does he feel he is entitled to claim £20 a week CB just because he gets taxed to high hell? NO. And for the record, small companies get taxed ridiculous amounts. Its his childrens inheritance and when he sells the company dont you doubt the tax man will be taking a huge chunk of it away...does he claim CB, NO. Because its not a case of put loads in, get something out...
> 
> then on the flip-side, we live on one wage...I look after out daughter and my OH works his arse off...we dont have much but we actually are ON what the government deems suitable to live off...so we could just sit at home and get the exact same monthly wage as what we would on benefits but my OH works because its IN OUR MORALS.
> 
> You say I cant be sure, but I have seen both sides and I know that in my parents circumstance they never claimed a penny. Not because they couldnt but because it would be taking it when what they had was satisfactory to live off.
> 
> The government has done this for a reason. So as you may disagree with my very first statement. Im sorry but the government obviously agree with it...it has been passed. I feel comfortable with my statement knowing that the majority of government feel the same.

There's a bit of difference between having a company worth millions though and being someone earning £44k, and having your child benefit taken away. 

Hats off to you and your OH for your serious work ethic and for not wanting to take anything back out of society...but I can say for sure, even if myself or OH were earning that £44k a year and the government hadn't made the call to scrap child benefit, we would _always _still take it. In fact as a family we will earn over £44k between us when I go back to work part time and I wouldn't ever contemplate not taking CB as long as it remains available to us - As a parent, I will always do whatever I can to improve my own child's quality of life - and if that includes taking £20 extra a week in benefits to go towards their health and wellbeing then so be it. How do I know that our circumstances won't change further down the line, like we get made redundant or lose our house etc etc, I would kick myself and feel totally irresponsible if I hadn't been taking that payment for our child. This all sounds selfish when I read it back, but humans are inherently selfish - you care above all else for you and yours - it's life :blush:.

It's really tough as I believe wholeheartedly in a welfare state and that we look after those more vulnerable in society - which inevitably means sometimes making cuts for those on higher incomes - but likewise, if payments are available to us as a family, then it means the government deem us needy or worthy of them, so why on earth shouldn't we take them.

I think the ladies hit the nail on the head in an earlier post when they talked about what £550 can get you for rent. How can any of us judge on another's circumstances when house prices/rents etc are so wildly different? Also, childcare varies massively across families, depending on whether you're paying ridiculous nursery fees or getting help from grandparents etc.

Sorry I quoted you Twiggy! - the whole ramble wasn't directed at you - just my jumbled thoughts on all of this :flower:


----------



## dom85

Lucy Lu said:


> It's really tough as I believe wholeheartedly in a welfare state and that we look after those more vulnerable in society - which inevitably means sometimes making cuts for those on higher incomes - but likewise, if payments are available to us as a family, then it means the government deem us needy or worthy of them, so why on earth shouldn't we take them.
> 
> I think the ladies hit the nail on the head in an earlier post when they talked about what £550 can get you for rent. How can any of us judge on another's circumstances when house prices/rents etc are so wildly different? Also, childcare varies massively across families, depending on whether you're paying ridiculous nursery fees or getting help from grandparents etc.

That's the thing isn't it, until you've had to live it you really cant say what's right or not. From some people's comments about people on benefits it seems like you think that people that get benefits are rich, which is certainly not the case, an earlier poster mentioned something about job seekers as £70 a week, it's not, it's something like £50 a week, the most you get on income support is £65 and that's if you're a single parent, but still, £65 a week is not a lot when you have to pay the bills and buy food with that.

Then on the other hand people think that £44K is loads of money so you can live without child benefit, and I understand that people have mortgages to pay and car loans etc etc, but you have these because earning £44k enables you to get these things, and quite right too as you'd have to work pretty hard to earn that kind of money, but benefits pay for necessities, people that claim them aren't going to have a mortgage or pension or insurance etc, and it doesn't mean that someone who earns £15K a year doesn't work hard either.

I agree that the government need to make it worthwhile for people to get into work, but then there's some of you on here taking issue with those of us who do work and claim support in order to work the hours that we can. What do you want them to do, take away everything to force you to go back to work full time? Well that not really fair is it, there's not even enough vacancies at the moment in this country for even a quarter of people that are out of work.

I think a lot of it is about work ethic and attitude though, I could sit on my arse all day every day if I wanted to and claim full benefits, but I dont, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, as I said in my previous post, I have gone back to work, yes it is only 3 days but that's what I can do right now taking into account the cost of childcare, travel to work, rent costs down here etc, if I went back to what I doing before I actually couldn't afford to live, I could pay the rent and bills and childcare but that's it, no money for food. So I do what I can, why should I be penalised for that?

However, I do intend to go back to work full time in the future, but I want to retrain as a teacher, so as long as the government keep free childcare for those on training courses then I can do that next year and by the time Brady gets his free nursery place I can go into work full time and pay for the top up childcare he needs after nursery, at which point he'll be 3. So in the long run I will be paying more into the system then if I was forced to work full time in the job I'm doing now, so yes something needs to change but it needs to be a change that _supports_ people back into work, not forces them into shit jobs because they aren't qualified to do anything else.


----------



## bambino156

dom85 said:


> Lucy Lu said:
> 
> 
> It's really tough as I believe wholeheartedly in a welfare state and that we look after those more vulnerable in society - which inevitably means sometimes making cuts for those on higher incomes - but likewise, if payments are available to us as a family, then it means the government deem us needy or worthy of them, so why on earth shouldn't we take them.
> 
> I think the ladies hit the nail on the head in an earlier post when they talked about what £550 can get you for rent. How can any of us judge on another's circumstances when house prices/rents etc are so wildly different? Also, childcare varies massively across families, depending on whether you're paying ridiculous nursery fees or getting help from grandparents etc.
> 
> That's the thing isn't it, until you've had to live it you really cant say what's right or not. *From some people's comments about people on benefits it seems like you think that people that get benefits are rich*, which is certainly not the case, an earlier poster mentioned something about job seekers as £70 a week, it's not, it's something like £50 a week, the most you get on income support is £65 and that's if you're a single parent, but still, £65 a week is not a lot when you have to pay the bills and buy food with that.
> 
> Then on the other hand *people think that £44K is loads of money so you can live without child benefit, and I understand that people have mortgages to pay and car loans etc etc, but you have these because earning £44k enables you to get these things, and quite right too as you'd have to work pretty hard to earn that kind of money, but benefits pay for necessities,* people that claim them aren't going to have a mortgage or pension or insurance etc, and it doesn't mean that someone who earns £15K a year doesn't work hard either.
> 
> I agree that the government need to make it worthwhile for people to get into work, but then there's some of you on here taking issue with those of us who do work and claim support in order to work the hours that we can. What do you want them to do, take away everything to force you to go back to work full time? Well that not really fair is it, there's not even enough vacancies at the moment in this country for even a quarter of people that are out of work.
> 
> I think a lot of it is about work ethic and attitude though, I could sit on my arse all day every day if I wanted to and claim full benefits, but I dont, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, as I said in my previous post, I have gone back to work, yes it is only 3 days but that's what I can do right now taking into account the cost of childcare, travel to work, rent costs down here etc, if I went back to what I doing before I actually couldn't afford to live, I could pay the rent and bills and childcare but that's it, no money for food. So I do what I can, why should I be penalised for that?
> 
> However, I do intend to go back to work full time in the future, but I want to retrain as a teacher, so as long as the government keep free childcare for those on training courses then I can do that next year and by the time Brady gets his free nursery place I can go into work full time and pay for the top up childcare he needs after nursery, at which point he'll be 3. So in the long run I will be paying more into the system then if I was forced to work full time in the job I'm doing now, so yes something needs to change but it needs to be a change that _supports_ people back into work, not forces them into shit jobs because they aren't qualified to do anything else.Click to expand...

I don't think that most people think that those on benefits are rich, but there are cases where some people on benefits are actually far better off financially, with much more disposable income than those working full time. So to some it may seem that some people on benefits are relatively rich in comparison. On the flip side a lot of people think that people earning 44k are rich.

I agree that to earn 44k you must be working dam hard, thats why its annoying when people (not you) say things like, live within your means etc. People earning 44k are living within their means, this might mean that they have a larger house with a larger mortgage, the mum might not have to work, but these decisions have been made based on the 44k income, iykwim?

I also agree that something has got to change, people living entirely on benefits should not be better off than those out working ft. Those that go back to pt work should not be worse off than if they decided to be a sahm. I also think that the cost of childcare is just too high, but thats another issue! :flower:


----------



## dom85

bambino156 said:


> dom85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Lu said:
> 
> 
> It's really tough as I believe wholeheartedly in a welfare state and that we look after those more vulnerable in society - which inevitably means sometimes making cuts for those on higher incomes - but likewise, if payments are available to us as a family, then it means the government deem us needy or worthy of them, so why on earth shouldn't we take them.
> 
> I think the ladies hit the nail on the head in an earlier post when they talked about what £550 can get you for rent. How can any of us judge on another's circumstances when house prices/rents etc are so wildly different? Also, childcare varies massively across families, depending on whether you're paying ridiculous nursery fees or getting help from grandparents etc.
> 
> That's the thing isn't it, until you've had to live it you really cant say what's right or not. *From some people's comments about people on benefits it seems like you think that people that get benefits are rich*, which is certainly not the case, an earlier poster mentioned something about job seekers as £70 a week, it's not, it's something like £50 a week, the most you get on income support is £65 and that's if you're a single parent, but still, £65 a week is not a lot when you have to pay the bills and buy food with that.
> 
> Then on the other hand *people think that £44K is loads of money so you can live without child benefit, and I understand that people have mortgages to pay and car loans etc etc, but you have these because earning £44k enables you to get these things, and quite right too as you'd have to work pretty hard to earn that kind of money, but benefits pay for necessities,* people that claim them aren't going to have a mortgage or pension or insurance etc, and it doesn't mean that someone who earns £15K a year doesn't work hard either.
> 
> I agree that the government need to make it worthwhile for people to get into work, but then there's some of you on here taking issue with those of us who do work and claim support in order to work the hours that we can. What do you want them to do, take away everything to force you to go back to work full time? Well that not really fair is it, there's not even enough vacancies at the moment in this country for even a quarter of people that are out of work.
> 
> I think a lot of it is about work ethic and attitude though, I could sit on my arse all day every day if I wanted to and claim full benefits, but I dont, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, as I said in my previous post, I have gone back to work, yes it is only 3 days but that's what I can do right now taking into account the cost of childcare, travel to work, rent costs down here etc, if I went back to what I doing before I actually couldn't afford to live, I could pay the rent and bills and childcare but that's it, no money for food. So I do what I can, why should I be penalised for that?
> 
> However, I do intend to go back to work full time in the future, but I want to retrain as a teacher, so as long as the government keep free childcare for those on training courses then I can do that next year and by the time Brady gets his free nursery place I can go into work full time and pay for the top up childcare he needs after nursery, at which point he'll be 3. So in the long run I will be paying more into the system then if I was forced to work full time in the job I'm doing now, so yes something needs to change but it needs to be a change that _supports_ people back into work, not forces them into shit jobs because they aren't qualified to do anything else.Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that most people think that those on benefits are rich, but there are cases where some people on benefits are actually far better off financially, with much more disposable income than those working full time. So to some it may seem that some people on benefits are relatively rich in comparison. On the flip side a lot of people think that people earning 44k are rich.
> 
> I agree that to earn 44k you must be working dam hard, thats why its annoying when people (not you) say things like, live within your means etc. People earning 44k are living within their means, this might mean that they have a larger house with a larger mortgage, the mum might not have to work, but these decisions have been made based on the 44k income, iykwim?
> 
> I also agree that something has got to change, people living entirely on benefits should not be better off than those out working ft. Those that go back to pt work should not be worse off than if they decided to be a sahm. I also think that the cost of childcare is just too high, but thats another issue! :flower:Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, I dont think you can say to someone on £44k, you dont need CB, live within your means, if you've had that £80+ a month for a long time then you assign it to something in your budget dont you? And you can say the same thing to people on benefits, there are probably more people on benefits who dont actually live within their means because they dont know what a household budget is, one of the girls at a play group I go to is ALWAYS skint because as soon as she gets money she spends it.

I just didn't like the way some people in this thread seemed to be lumping people who worked part time with those that live completely off of benefits and have no intention of doing anything with their lives.


----------



## DaisyvonStarr

O


AimeeM said:


> Louisaxx said:
> 
> 
> It's a complete load of rubbish, it doesn't effect me at the moment as I work part time but I won't be going full time in a hurry cos I would be above the threshold. Child benefit is important to people regardless of their income and other posters on this thread should think before they decide who they think needs it the most as they know nothing of peoples situations, outgoings etc
> Maybe the people who do carry on getting it should get vouchers that they can spend on their child or invest in their future with, because I know for a fact that many families spend their child benefit on fags and booze, but that's okay cos they earn less than 44k isn't it?????????????
> 
> What a horrible way to direct a comment at people earning a low wage. Fags and booze? So people earning over 44k don't drink and smoke do they not?
> 
> My hubby got laid off a year ago and the only job he could get is working minimum wage, yes £5.83p and hour, 12 hour night shifts in an old peoples home, cleaning crap all night. He works his frigging arse off all week for hardly anything then there are people like you who will ALWAYS assume the worst and look down your nose at people on a low income thinking all we want is fags and booze and the like.
> 
> You want to take a look at your narrow-mind and think a little deeper at the situations people are in and realise not all of us are here through choice love.
> 
> Edit- I forgot to add, i dont smoke or drink btw.Click to expand...

Calm down! I dont think she was saying that about everybody who earns under 44k she was just making the point that there are a lot of people that do abuse their benefits! This forum can get so heated sometimes!


----------



## gills8752

This thread is wayyyyy old! Don't bring it back to life!! lol


----------



## DaisyvonStarr

Well I was reading through it. Why are you all so rude and sarcastic on here, its actually horrible!


----------



## xnewxmummyx

woah i just realised this is an old thread lol!!

thought it was started today lol and just been thanking people's posts, hahahahaah :doh:

xx


----------



## KatelynsMummy

DaisyvonStarr said:


> Well I was reading through it. Why are you all so rude and sarcastic on here, its actually horrible!

That's not a nice thing to say, but theres no point in bringing back a thread from October. Thats all.


----------



## DaisyvonStarr

It was only on the second page of threads so I assumed it was recent oops


----------



## KayBea

I think if your household income is above 50K then you shouldnt get it..

X


----------



## dani_tinks

This is an old thread but all i'm going to say is - unless you know everyone whos household income is over 44k (or whatever it is) and their outgoings and circumstances then how can you say whether them losing CB is going to effect them?
Just because they earn more than you you can't automatically think they're better off financially. People with bigger incomes have bigger outgoings. We all live within our means.


----------



## wiiwidow

Can't help myself...:dohh: but why can't she comment on an old thread? What's the problem with it...is there a time limit on threads that we cant start commenting on??

Not trying to stir up anything but I just don't see why people can't comment on whatever they want? :shrug:


----------



## Pramaholic86

My partner is studying hard for a promotion at the mo which means if he gets it we'll lose our entitlement.
At the same time as I go on zero pay for the last few months of my maternity leave, we still have to pay all the usual bills, rent, council tax etc so to assume it won't affect some individuals is ignorant.

The system penalises those who work hard.


----------



## dani_tinks

Pramaholic86 said:


> The system penalises those who work hard.

true that :(. Bloody tories.


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

If I still worked full time our combined income would be £47k. But we'd lose £1200 a month to childcare, our commuting costs would be a joint £600 a month, our rent is £700 a month, council tax is £130, you get the picture.


----------



## Mummy2onexx

.


----------



## Hayley90

eek, i missed this thread... (just read back - its old, thats why :lol:)

Tbh, im with the general consensus here... its a sucky way to arrange things, but itd cost them a shedload of cash to reform everything, and even then you cant please everybody. 


'its easier to amend, than it is to invent'
x


----------



## Mrs-C

I wish we earnt £44k between us.


----------



## jenny82

My OH earns just above the threshold and whilst I've never complained about ctc or wtc, as its not something i ever had until LO was born, our income does not go a long way at all! We do struggle and we don't have an extravagant lifestyle. We have a mortgage, car, loans, credit card. I haven't had a holiday in 4 years. I contrast that with my cousins or relatives of friends who have lesser paid jobs and seem to just always have more money than us. 

My friends SIL just bought a brand new car, got A new kitchen and head off somewhere lovely for a holiday next week and we (my friend and I) were gobsmacked! Our 'holiday' this year - first in 4 years - is a cheap cottage for a week in the south of Ireland. I honestly don't know what we're doing wrong!


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

I guess some people are in loads of debt and just get whatever even though they can't afford it. We have ZERO disposable income but no debt either. (well, I don't count student loan.)


----------



## leash27

Mum2b_Claire said:


> I guess some people are in loads of debt and just get whatever even though they can't afford it. We have ZERO disposable income but no debt either. *(well, I don't count student loan.*)

Nah me either - its not even real :rofl:

x


----------



## jenny82

We do have debt unfortunately. Stupid credit cards from when we were young, although they'll be nearly paid out next year! House loan we got for doing the place up and my ridiculously high student loan (although i don't think about that one either!). The debt would be zero if we could get rid of this stupid house, but no one wants to buy it :(


----------



## Hayley90

im so glad i dont have a student loan :lol: especially looking at the jobs i have had since leaving school... sooo not worth all the hassle of uni and debt for that :rofl: :rofl: I owe money for my sofa, and OH owes his grandparents, and an overdraft. For a couple in our early 20s we arent doing too bad :rofl: I have a credit card, with £400 on the balance, which i guess is pretty good in the grander scheme of things. 

I dont notice my CHB when it goes in/out, as i dont even know when i get it. Or how much exactly i get... i work from my wages, and dont spend more than i earn... so i guess the CHB is just sitting there being spent on random expenses.


----------



## Lydiarose

To be honest i agree,i watched a programme last night about poor children on bbc 1 and they way they had to live was appauling.

Dans just lost his job so we are finding it extremelly hard.

If he earnt 44k i would be more than happy to see 20 quid a week go to people who need it more.

Im really sorry if this offends but i have to say it,i think its very selfish whining about loosing that amunt when your on that much money.

You dont realise how lucky you are


----------



## jenny82

I wasn't whining about losing anything - just giving my 2 cents about our lack of cash in general :)

Tbh I was panicking so much about finding work and being pregnant and us not having as much income coming in. I hunted and hunted and contacted so many firms, stressing so much and looking into every opportunity to make money and finally the work paid off. I may be pregnant but i got a great work-from-home job yesterday and I am damn well pleased with myself.


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

leash27 said:


> Mum2b_Claire said:
> 
> 
> I guess some people are in loads of debt and just get whatever even though they can't afford it. We have ZERO disposable income but no debt either. *(well, I don't count student loan.*)
> 
> Nah me either - its not even real :rofl:
> 
> xClick to expand...

I'll be dead before mine is paid off :dohh:


----------



## Mummy2onexx

Lydiarose said:


> To be honest i agree,i watched a programme last night about poor children on bbc 1 and they way they had to live was appauling.
> 
> Dans just lost his job so we are finding it extremelly hard.
> 
> If he earnt 44k i would be more than happy to see 20 quid a week go to people who need it more.
> 
> Im really sorry if this offends but i have to say it,i think its very selfish whining about loosing that amunt when your on that much money.
> 
> You dont realise how lucky you are


my thoughts exactly :thumbup:


----------



## leash27

Mum2b_Claire said:


> leash27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mum2b_Claire said:
> 
> 
> I guess some people are in loads of debt and just get whatever even though they can't afford it. We have ZERO disposable income but no debt either. *(well, I don't count student loan.*)
> 
> Nah me either - its not even real :rofl:
> 
> xClick to expand...
> 
> I'll be dead before mine is paid off :dohh:Click to expand...

Me too! I have been paying it since 2007 and I don't even think I have made a dent in it yet! :shrug: The only time it really winds me up is when I get my annual bonus from work and the student loan people snatch a bit more off me - the cheeky beggers lol!

x


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

leash27 said:



> Mum2b_Claire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leash27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mum2b_Claire said:
> 
> 
> I guess some people are in loads of debt and just get whatever even though they can't afford it. We have ZERO disposable income but no debt either. *(well, I don't count student loan.*)
> 
> Nah me either - its not even real :rofl:
> 
> xClick to expand...
> 
> I'll be dead before mine is paid off :dohh:Click to expand...
> 
> Me too! I have been paying it since 2007 and I don't even think I have made a dent in it yet! :shrug: The only time it really winds me up is when I get my annual bonus from work and the student loan people snatch a bit more off me - the cheeky beggers lol!
> 
> xClick to expand...

I hate that too!
Before I had Ruby they took £130 off me one christmas!
I'm paying nothing currently, I don't earn enough any more, I think I've paid off about 10% of it, I started repaying in 2005. I always laugh when I get the annual statement through, it seems such a pointless exercise.


----------



## leash27

£130?? The robbing sods! I hate that they can just take it and you don't even know they have taken anything extra until you get your payslip. I can't even remember the last time I seen a statement but I am fairly confident I have got about 30 years of repayments left ahead of me. I bet they will be thrilled when I return to work next month and I have to start paying it again!

The really stupid thing is, I wasted most of it on clothes and nights out. Good times, good times :thumbup:

x


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

Oh yeah me too, I didn't need my student loan at all, the plan was for me to take it and stash it in a high interest account and actually MAKE money from it. All I can say about that is, :rofl:


----------



## leash27

Mum2b_Claire said:


> Oh yeah me too, I didn't need my student loan at all, the plan was for me to take it and stash it in a high interest account and actually MAKE money from it. All I can say about that is, :rofl:

:dohh:

Whats a girl to do?! Uni = social events and social events = the need for a new outfit. If only life were still so simple......

x


----------



## booflebump

Not quite sure why this thread was pulled up from October last year, but there's no point going over old ground

Thread locked


----------

