[Closed] child benefit..

Just laughing at all the folk who think £42000 a year is not well off.

Forget it. You're clearly not in the mood for a coherent argument based on actual numbers, rather than misdirected political propaganda.

G'night.

Tj i think you need to separate the idea of anything more than poverty being well off.

You can play with the words but there is, i would suggest, a scale of wealthiness in my words

destitute - poverty - poor - coping - comfy - doing ok - well off - wealthy - stinking rich

With housing costs, rising food and fuel costs, childcare costs i think you'd be surprised how many really fall into the coping bracket at the lower end of the 40% bracket especially in London and the South. Since I also work with those with financial problems I see first hand just how tight things can be for people.

You need significant assets as well as income to be well off but that's obvious right TJ?

If you are only "coping" on £42000+ pa you really need to have a darn good look at your outgoings.

I am sorry - It is completely ridiculous to believe that people earning so much more than the average and amongst wealthiest earners in our country are not well off.

Graham - its nothing to do with misdirected political propaganda - its all about actually having some understanding of the reality of the situation. Some of you really have no idea of reality at all on this

😆

What is the minimum lifestyle should one lead to be considered well off?

Live in a 3 bed semi?
Drive a medium size car less than 3 years old?
Eat once a week at a slow food restaurant?
Holiday in a nearby European location?
Buy new clothes for their family?
Eat properly cooked meals?

How much income needed for that?

Sometimes I wish there were webcams on STW just to see people's face when the they read and write things!

If you are only "coping" on £42000+ pa you really need to have a darn good look at your outgoings.

Well your man up there ^ seems to me to have the 'same' if not lesser lifestyle than his neighbours (which I assume live in the same area being neighbours) who do not work and claim benefits.

Therefore something is wrong.

Ultimately irrespective of what is classed as the 'top 10%' the simple fact is the 'normal' people in 'normal' jobs earning 'normal' money struggle the same as people who do not earn. Maybe they value the earned money more. Insinuating that you should live in a bin to have a better lifestyle on your 42K is insulting.

NZ col - that was utter bulshine tho - it simply is impossible to afford 4 foreign holidays a year living on benefits without massive embezzlement.

Insuniation that £42 000 pa is barely enough to live on is grossly offensive to the vast majority of folk who live on far far less

Insuniation that £42 000 pa is barely enough to live on is grossly offensive to the vast majority of folk who live on far far less

NZ col - that was utter bulshine tho - it simply is impossible to afford 4 foreign holidays a year living on benefits without massive embezzlement.

Insuniation that £42 000 pa is barely enough to live on is grossly offensive to the vast majority of folk who live on far far less

But that is what they are doing so either he is a liar or they are.
I take my hat off to everybody that gets out their bed and does an honest days wor, raises a family and contributes to the fabric of society. to the dossing bastards that don't or won't I own you with bombers. And in the former category i also include all those that would LIKE to but due to market conditions can't.

I'm with TJ, some of you need a serious reality check. You have no idea how financially hard life can be for some people. You might not have a lot of disposable income but that is not the same as having no money. If I earned anywhere near £40k a year it would be like winning the lottery.

Stupidly checked back in while having a poo (webcams would be a bad idea!) so I'll leave you with this FACT from the very [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom ]Wiki article that you linked to earlier[/url] TJ:

[b]"[In 2011] average net household income (after tax) stood at £38,547"[/b]

So your supposedly "well off" "top 10%" "amongst wealthiest earners in our country" individual on £42k, actually has an after-tax household income that is well below the national average.

Reality enough for you?

you are comparing individuals to a households do I really need to point out why that is a poor measure.
what % of those households have a higher rate tax payer?

Those on the higher rate are still individually the top 10% irrespective of what others in their household earn

+1 GrahamS again!

Child benefit is as the name so clearly states for the benefit of the child and is one of the cornerstones of the welfare state. Children are part of households and so it is self evident (but clearly not to some -TJ!)that the total household income is of greater relevance than the personal income of one individual within that household. And £42k gross,£36k net amongst a household of 5 is far less FOR THE CHILDREN than a couple both earning £40k each with one child.But who will still get the CHB?

nick - irrelevant - both housholds have plenty of money

Graham - dunno where you pulled that from Edit spotted it - also has median at £26 000 which is rather more realistic as the higher figure is distorted by the really very very rich

Annual Net Household income Percentile point
£5,000 3%
£10,000 10%
£15,000 31%
£20,000 50%
£25,000 66%
£30,000 77%
£35,000 85%
£40,000 90%
£45,000 93%
£50,000 95%
£60,000 97%
£75,000 99%

i work in a number of homes where the families are benifit dependent and some do have multiple overseas holidays I recently had to wait 3 months for acess to one council home as the tenant was in australia. another of the homes we work in has a mid fifties guy on benifits and he has a holiday home in bulgaria. many many tenants have static caravans at or near the coast.
child benefit is not needed by many recipients nor is the winter fuel allowance. does my aunt need it for logs in her colarado cabin or to keep the pool warm in majorca or for her centrally heating her modest 6 bed home in Harrogate

and tonite i watch newsnight and see some tory toady bleating on behalf of widows in homes valued 2.5m who cant afford to eat.. its Brazil for me Ronnie Biggs was nt wrong 50 years ago.

also has median at £26 000 which is rather more realistic as the higher figure is distorted by the really very very rich

Okay. So our [url= http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/index.php?yr=2012&age=0&time=1&ingr=42000&calculate=Calculate ]42k income is taking home 31k after tax. [/url]

So they have £416 per month more than the median.
(not really my idea of super wealthy).

Throw in a few hefty outgoings (children, nursery fees, mortgage, car, professional expenses) and you can see how they might not have much disposable left each month, despite their apparently outrageous income.

Annual Net Household income Percentile point...

Got anything more recent? Those figures are from six years ago, pre-recession and don't reflect the median you are talking about.

Assuming that money does not buy happiness ( indeed true wealth is having the things that money can't buy), and that it is perfectly possible to have a fulfilled and comfortable lifestyle according to TJ on salaries below the threshold under discussion, why all the angst about it? It should be irrelevant if people think the opposite, as they obviously don't get it.

Twohundred!

Get you and your two hundred in your Edinburgh splendour. 😉

Interesting snippet from PMQs today is that Cameron claimed Disability Living Allowance. He's a multimillionaire. He also thinks people earning more than £40k shouldn't get child benefit.

Was he not entitled to it?

Strikes me as the same issue as that thread recently on Ken Livingston's tax arrangements.

Yes he could have claimed it but did he need it? Did he ****

Just like those on higher rate tax 😀

[i]Cameron claimed Disability Living Allowance[/i]

Maybe he had to claim it, otherwise his child wouldn't be eligible (and not just in a cash way) for other things - don't know, but could imagine?

br - bogus argument - Cameron is so rich that he does not need stte entitlement to anything.

He does make the folk "struggling on £42000" look poor

GrahamS - Member

Throw in a few hefty outgoings (children, nursery fees, mortgage, car, professional expenses) and you can see how they might not have much disposable left each month, despite their apparently outrageous income.

Why should the outgoings be 'hefty' just because they earn more? Should budget better!

Maybe he had to claim it, otherwise his child wouldn't be eligible (and not just in a cash way) for other things - don't know, but could imagine?

Don't know the ins and outs of this, but I could certainly imagine that Disability Living Allowance [i]might[/i] be a gateway to things like special schooling, physiotherapy, mobility aids etc

Why should the outgoings be 'hefty' just because they earn more? Should budget better!

CaptJon - Member

Interesting snippet from PMQs today is that Cameron claimed Disability Living Allowance. He's a multimillionaire. He also thinks people earning more than £40k shouldn't get child benefit.

and yet hes fine with proposed cuts to DLA in the welfare reform bill

wow! just when i didnt think i could like the man any less.......

don simon - Member

Why should the outgoings be 'hefty' just because they earn more? Should budget better!

Because the earning opportunities are limited and the employee has to either live in a high demand area or commute and good suits aren't cheap. Factories are put in the ar5e end of nowhere for a reason.

Rubbish. My bro commutes to London Bridge and is a lowly intern. He has to budget around this.

Rubbish.

Why should the outgoings be 'hefty' just because they earn more? Should budget better!

Well... someone in a 42k job may well have to fork out for things like membership of professional bodies, training and industry exams for instance.

They may need to spend more on suits etc as they could be meeting important clients. They may need a decent car for the same reason.

But importantly I'm [u]not[/u] saying that EVERYONE on 42k has these expenses or that they all struggle financially. I'm just saying that I can quite easily imagine how someone on that amount [i]might[/i] still struggle.

e.g. let's say Mrs 42k brings home £2,587 a month, but she needs to pay out say £1400 to send her 3 kids to nursery, £800 on her (pretty modest) mortgage, £100 on car/fuel, £100 on food, £100 on household bills...

Try telling her she is one of the wealthiest people in the country!

Removing benefits from a household based on an individual income and tax bracket, while other households with far greater incomes will still receive them, is grossly unfair, no matter how "laughable" TJ finds it.

well i certainly dont earn 42K

i do know that our nursery fees are over a grand a month and we only have kimbers jr in for 4 days a week

if we have a 2nd kid its no longer worth us both working, how does that help the economy?

ah the joys of london, infact brentford which is some way out - I commute by bike 20 miles a day fwiw

£1400pcm for nursery - thats precisely the sort of thing that shows the complete fallacy of your argument. thats more than many people earn

I agree with you to some extent about the benefits. However its been done that way as it cheap and simple to do.

115GBP per child per week doesn't seem too bad after we've taken into consideration the cost of rent, utilities, insurances, professional qualification and union fees to prevent underpaying. 😀

A couple of us in my office will loose out on CB.

Yes, as a family, we can afford to loose the benefit, but it wil have an impact. Colleague has 3 kids and will take a bigger hit.

Both of us would be better off by dropping our hours to 4 days per week (1), reducing our tax liability (2), and retaining the child benefit for the family (3).

1. In a time of recesssion, where is the sense in people choosing to be less economically productive - utter idiocy, but that is what the "system" provides as the most cost-effective solution... 😯 but hey, let's grow the economy FFS

2. Yep, could easily drop below the threshold by reducing hours and / or by increasing pension payments. BUT, how would this benefit anyone (except my family). The state gets less tax contribution, even though they have precipitated the action (and I'm sure many will be contemplating this)

3. So we retain our CB - increased burden on the state

Don't know about a Labour tax double whammy - reads like a Tory tax tripple whammy

but I could certainly imagine that Disability Living Allowance might be a gateway to things like special schooling, physiotherapy, mobility aids etc

The other things are irrelevant as you get them anyway based on Dr reports. I have just checked with Benefits agency contacts I have

£1400pcm for nursery - thats precisely the sort of thing that shows the complete fallacy of your argument.

Says the childless man. 🙄

Now who needs a reality check? Nursery care is very expensive.
Our nursery, for 1 child, 3 days a week, is £540 a month.

If you've got three kids to pay for then even the cheapest nursery is going to be a significant part of your monthly outlay.

thats more than many people earn

Yes I know, hence why [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17156383 ]Childcare cost rises 'may make parents quit their jobs' (BBC News)[/url]

From that article:

This year's survey finds the average cost of a part-time nursery place for a child under two is more than £100 a week or £5,000 a year, with significant regional variations.

Nurseries in London and south-east England were most expensive, with a top price of £300 a week for a part-time place.

Incidentally: Interesting item on Radio 4 last night about how cheap state-subsidised universal childcare in Denmark leads to huge take up (93%), more people in work and more gender equality in the workplace.

Just spotted this bit:

I agree with you to some extent about the benefits.

I think I need to go for a little lie down now.

I think I need to go for a little lie down now.

he's run out of steam on the pensions thread so he's trying to trick you on this one - beware

So then - how do people manage when their income is less than you consider is essential to spend on childcare? Childminders, informal arrangements, granny and neighbours, working opposite shifts etc. I know many families wehre the parents work opposite shifts to manage childcare

This is the bit you don't understand - things you consider essential are just not available to many folk because they do not earn enough

Come on - get real here

too right tj. my kids swimming lessons cost us 135 per half term guitar lessons 38 a half term running club £7 a month brownies £2 a week ( plus £5 a week for the pack holiday) ive got gym sessions at 3 pw, ballet at 3pw and horse riding at £15 ph.
now the eldest has a laptop she stumps up for moshi monsters membership and a idont know how much that is..
childcares only twwice a week picked up from school i think its 160 a month for the pair.. school dinners arent 7/6 like when i had them anymore.

kids? anybody want a couple..

Incidentally: Interesting item on Radio 4 last night about how cheap state-subsidised universal childcare in Denmark leads to huge take up (93%), more people in work and more gender equality in the workplace.

Come on - get real here

Clearly, a number of parallel realities being described on here...