new child tax credits for 2012!!!!!

[Soph n Chris]

for those with partners earning 70 000 your partner will still have a take home pay of around £47 000!!! Yes, its a lot of tax but still plenty to live off! I do appreciate that its all relative but you will have a far better standard of living and have many more choices like where to live, food to eat etc.[/QUOTe/]

Your point is??

 

[mumoffive]

Well its just some people say that on this they arent 'rich'. While i can totally appreciate that its all relative to what people on that amount spend their money on..they will have a better standard of living because their wage will allow them more choices..that is all.

 

[emsie_123]

That's why moms don't work in the UK. It's cheaper for them to stay at home! The government needs to get on the ball!

This would never be the case in the scandianavian countries. This would actually be seen as sexual discrimination. It really should be same here

 

[lozzy21]

If you have a take home pay of 47k a year why on earth do you need tax credits or child benefit? We manage ok on 23k (before tax) 47 would be amazing!

 

[special_kala]

If you have a take home pay of 47k a year why on earth do you need tax credits or child benefit? We manage ok on 23k (before tax) 47 would be amazing!

But the problem is someone could the same about them being on 16k.

 

[lozzy21]

True but once you get below a certain point it becomes impossible to live, you can only down size your house and outgoings to a certain point.

 

[Soph n Chris]

If you have a take home pay of 47k a year why on earth do you need tax credits or child benefit? We manage ok on 23k (before tax) 47 would be amazing!

Because people live to their means....

 

[weewdy]

I know ill be in the minority and get slated for this but the pp whos man earns 70000 a yr will work hard for it. A take home pay of 47000 is still good but in a yr the government earn 23000 from one man. Now i dont think getting just over £1000 back in child benefit is wrong. He has paid that in tax, yes if he chose not to take it fair enough but surely he is entitled to it! Its the government thats completely messed up. They still take their huge bonuses and get their perks. Sorry just using pp as an example. I think it shocking in this country the more you work the less you get.

 

[Tasha]

Down sizing isnt an option for many atm, because of negative equity.

Weewdy, there are many people working just as many hours as those on £70k but on minimum wage, it isnt always a case of the more you work the less you get, but yes it is the more you earn the less you get. How else is it meant to be?

 

[lozzy21]

I know downsizing your house is not always an option but there are other things, get rid of your car and get the bus, down size your phone and sky package, shop at aldi instead of morrisons, things quite a lot of people have to do anyway to be able afford the occasional luxury.

As for how hard you work being reflected in your pay, thats bollocks. I get assaulted at work on a regular basis, now im not complaining because i love my job but some one working at aldi comes out with more an hour than i do. How much you earn is not allways a reflection of how hard you work.

 

[XJessicaX]

Didn't realise this thread was still going! Just got a notification!

Surprisingly 40+ K doesn't go that far. We live comfortably but by no means a flashy lifestyle. In fact I think we are more frugal with money than far lower earners. With my husbands salary comes years of achademia. All very expensive. He studied at Cambridge, got a good degree, now he is doing a masters. I think he owes around 30k still! He loses 40% of earnings to tax and then a large chunk is removed for years of uni! We live in Cambridge and life is expensive here but can't really move as we live where my husband works!

Anyways, I am allowed to sulk like the next person. I'm an NHS worker and been battered and broken by the system. Literally battered at work (I worked with patients with head injuries) and I got paid pittance for it all. Hideous shifts, back to back endless toil and then a mile walk because I couldn't park my car in the hospital staff parking because regardless of being one if the biggest hospital in the UK they don't care for their staff! I wish nurses did get paid more but sadly it's one of those jobs you fall into with a romantic naive view of but reality is you would get treated better in the coal mines!!

 

[Lina]

The tax system in this country is insane. Those on lower wages live paycheck to paycheck, the middle earners get absolutely hammered and the very rich pay to get around the system and often end up paying less than the first group. Can't say I really blame them, who wouldn't want to legitimately avoid extortionate money grabbing by government? The policies discourage aspiration, can't wait to get out!

 

[weewdy]

Sorry should have made it clearer what i meant. I meant that hes not sitting watching jeremy kyle he must be high up in a well paid job. Should these people be discriminated against because they work.

Lozzy21i totally agree i think it shocking how little nhs,police,fire, care staff in general get paid. The rate of pay per hr for amount of work isnt right. Sorry if it came across wrong.

 

[Meredith2010]

I know ill be in the minority and get slated for this but the pp whos man earns 70000 a yr will work hard for it. A take home pay of 47000 is still good but in a yr the government earn 23000 from one man. Now i dont think getting just over £1000 back in child benefit is wrong. He has paid that in tax, yes if he chose not to take it fair enough but surely he is entitled to it! Its the government thats completely messed up. They still take their huge bonuses and get their perks. Sorry just using pp as an example. I think it shocking in this country the more you work the less you get.

I agree with this post - without high earners there simply wouldn't be the money in the system to provide benefits to lower earners. The way I see it you can have people who don't work, live on benefits and purely take from society, and you can also have the opposite end of scale which is people who earn huge amounts and pay vast amounts in tax. If everyone only "took" then there wouldn't be the money to pay benefits, therefore society NEEDS high earners. And so I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in someone earning a million pounds a year receiving child benefit or tax credits or whatever. The amount of money they contribute to society means they deserve a small "thank you" in my eyes.

 

[special_kala]

I think the old system for child benefit was fine. Yes if your on 50k a year you don't need that £80 to survive but how ever much the parent earns every child in this country deserves a little something from the government for their future not just the poorer kids

 

[lozzy21]

Apparently only 3% of money paid out in benefits goes on job seekers, the rest goes on helping people who work or those who are disabled and cant work.

 

[Tasha]

I think the old system for child benefit was fine. Yes if your on 50k a year you don't need that £80 to survive but how ever much the parent earns every child in this country deserves a little something from the government for their future not just the poorer kids

I am not disagreeing with you that the system was okay before. However the last line doesnt make sense to me, it isnt suppose to be for their future.

 

[special_kala]

I think the old system for child benefit was fine. Yes if your on 50k a year you don't need that £80 to survive but how ever much the parent earns every child in this country deserves a little something from the government for their future not just the poorer kids

I am not disagreeing with you that the system was okay before. However the last line doesnt make sense to me, it isnt suppose to be for their future.

I phrased it wrong, I think its right that child benefit was invested in every child regardless of class

 

[Dezireey]

I know ill be in the minority and get slated for this but the pp whos man earns 70000 a yr will work hard for it. A take home pay of 47000 is still good but in a yr the government earn 23000 from one man. Now i dont think getting just over £1000 back in child benefit is wrong. He has paid that in tax, yes if he chose not to take it fair enough but surely he is entitled to it! Its the government thats completely messed up. They still take their huge bonuses and get their perks. Sorry just using pp as an example. I think it shocking in this country the more you work the less you get.

I agree with this post - without high earners there simply wouldn't be the money in the system to provide benefits to lower earners. The way I see it you can have people who don't work, live on benefits and purely take from society, and you can also have the opposite end of scale which is people who earn huge amounts and pay vast amounts in tax. If everyone only "took" then there wouldn't be the money to pay benefits, therefore society NEEDS high earners. And so I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in someone earning a million pounds a year receiving child benefit or tax credits or whatever. The amount of money they contribute to society means they deserve a small "thank you" in my eyes.

Stating that without high earners there simply wouldn't be enough money in the system to provide benefits to lower earners is a ridiculous statement, sorry it is.

Real high end earners make up for about 20% of today's society and the rest of us mere mortals, you know, the ones who have had a job since school, average wages here and there, maybe been lucky enough to have parents who can provide university fees so that we could get educated enough to get a half decent job somewhere in the ether, we make up about 70% of the population, 10% are the layabouts, the benefit cheats, the lazy people who can't be arsed to get a job at all since age 16. The backbone of this country, the people who pay their taxes ad nauseum are us average folk, our tax money is what fuels the fire and goes into the pit, not as you believe, the ‘high end earners’ of this world, yeah be nice to have a lot of them putting taxes into the pot, but there are not as many as you think, sorry.

Once you start getting into the wage bracket of about 50 - 60k plus per person earning, (so maybe household of almost 80 grand plus or thereabouts) you are not an ‘average’ person in today’s society, unfortunately. This is usually people who work in big cities with big jobs. I am always in awe of anyone who has worked their way up the ladder, or started out as something of an office junior and now is the CEO of a massive company, kudos to them. But average people don’t often get those breaks, don’t get those opportunities or ‘life’ just gets in the way and they are stuck with their average ‘20k’ a year job. Now, when you talk about relative terms with spending within your means, there is also an imbalance. How can a person who is already scrimping and saving to pay a mortgage, feed kids, petrol in car, live in an ‘average’ area, downsize effectively to live within their means?. What happens to them is that they would then live below the poverty line and their basics go out the window, like limited gas, central heating, not eating as much as before or taking kids out of a safe school and putting them in a less desirable one to re-locate to e.g a council house.

So… then you have your £60k plus earners, and when their benefits are cut, what do they actually lose out on? Just a perspective on what ‘cutting back’ actually means to most people who pay taxes in this country and then what ‘cutting back’ would actually mean for ‘high end’ earners, they would still have quite a comfortable life in most instances, not the case for the rest of us.

 

[special_kala]

Also I know things are mostly different now but I was talking to the girls god mum about this she is 60 and remembers when for some women child benefit was all the money they had because their husbands didn't give them any. It was a lifeline for some women and sadly probably still is for some women.