[Closed] child benefit..

how do people manage when their income is less than you consider is essential to spend on childcare

As per the article TJ: They quit their jobs because it is no longer economically viable to work.

Childminders, informal arrangements, granny and neighbours,

Registered childminders are just as expensive as nurseries. Informal arrangements are great for every now and again but I doubt you'd get many grannies or neighbours prepared to look after 3 kids for 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, every week.

I know many families wehre the parents work opposite shifts to manage childcare

Which is fine if you have two parents, they both have jobs where they can choose their shifts, nightshifts are available and they don't mind never seeing each other.

Come on - get real here

I am as real as you like.

You seem to think that someone on 42k is automatically a member of some rich elite class with no money worries - while studiously ignoring that this is actually a pretty average household income (below average, bit more than median) and that a household with two of your honest, but terribly poorly paid, Public Sector workers may well have a far greater total income.

AND still get Child Benefit.

AND a lovely gold-plated pension each.

Clearly.

Its people confusing lifestyle choices with need and want with need - and also justifying expensive choices as need

Paid nursery education makes little sense for us, my wife would struggle to earn enough. We have a family member living with us so she can work part time at the moment. Our child benefit goes straight into savings, and probably will even if my wife does not work.

TandemJeremy - Member
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

Work and childcare arrangements you consider possible are just on available for many folk because of their circumstances.

As per the article TJ: They quit their jobs because it is no longer economically viable to work.

Bullshine. They make do and find creative ways

Graham - seriously you need to question your whole attitude and try to understand reality for the vast majority of people who earn far less than the amounts you seem to think are essential to live on.

My heart bleeds for all you poverty stricken higher rate taxpayers. How you would manage on the sorts of sums most people do I cannot imagine. you might have to compromise your cosy middle-class lifestyles a bit - you know - live in a rented flat in Essex or something so appalling as that, work unsocail hours so you can manage childcare. You know - compromise, make do, be creative - live the lifestyle that most of the country has to.

I ave seen some ridiculous people with no idea of reality on here before but his one takes the biscuit - choco hobnobs of course!

Its people confusing lifestyle choices with need and want with need

Really? I suppose a disabled wife and seriously ageing MiL to support could be described as a life choice

My brother BTW - not me

Non means tested benefits available for both of them and / or the MIL must have income of her own

BTW TJ - you seem to want to defend your life choice of a high pension provision and supposed low waged job to the death.

maybe it's you that needs the reality check?

My heart bleeds for all you poverty stricken higher rate taxpayers.

Monochromatic as usual. You know not everything has to be an absolute TJ.
People are not Filthy Rich or Poverty Stricken.

you might have to compromise your cosy middle-class lifestyles a bit - you know - live in a rented flat in Essex or something so appalling as that, work unsocail hours so you can manage childcare.

So that's your definition of [i]"well off"[/i] is it??

Give up on home ownership, quit your job and take up one that lets you work unsociable hours, then stop sleeping so you can spend the daytime looking after your kids.

Yep, sounds like the lap of luxury to me.

Non means tested benefits available for both of them and / or the MIL must have income of her own

I've no idea TJ - I was making the point that you seem to think everything is a life choice

I thought child benefit for such high earners basically paid for iPads/bikes/skiing holidays etc ?

😉

I thought child benefit for such high earners basically paid for iPads/bikes/skiing holidays etc ?

what a bastard! - mine all turned 16 before the iPad came out 🙁

A small, cheap, childless Edinburgh flat earlier

[img] [/img]

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.

This is the very definition of poverty iirc I mean you cannot afford the annual ski holiday

+THIS is why folk think you are well off

I thought child benefit for such high earners basically paid for iPads/bikes/skiing holidays etc ?

🙂 I've said multiple times that I'm not against high income households losing Child Benefit. But it needs to be done fairly.

Using individual tax bracket as the basis for the cut is not fair, as some of those will be household with income significantly less than the national average, while far wealthier households will retain the benefit.

Let's take childcare costs, then.

A very REAL financial burden for very many families. What are the alternatives?

- Not have kids. OK, works for some folks. Wouldn't do for everyone. Huge financial benefit - smaller house or flat, lower transport costs, prob not need car etc.

- Pay for nursery / childminder. As above ^, costs are similar either way, and £500 per child per month doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary. Of course, if you are on low income / benefits, you get this paid for by the state, so this is one area where the higher rate payer gets to pay for stuff that others get for free. I have no problem with that, except that based on some folks known to us - it is widely abused.

- Use friends / parents. May be ok on an occaisional basis. However, I think every single one of my colleagues with kids have had to move away from their family home town / area for their career. As an ambitious single professsional this is a no-brainer. As a parent it is something to look back on and, perhaps, re-consider... ETA, my parent are too old for this anyway.

- One partner to give up work. Doesn't work for single parents, and it's a reflection of the failing benefits / work culture rather than on the individual parent. As NZcol alluded, something is badly wrong with the system when you can be better off by not going to work.

So yes, kids are a lifestyle choice, as is moving away from home - but put them together and the costs really start to rack up.

This isn't some sort of false or deluded reality for a few forum whingers on STW.

It is reality for very many families - that I know directly and as reported in the news media.

- Not have kids. OK, works for some folks

....... and who - pray - would pay TJs pension in the future because there isn't a pension pot you know?

ah, see, that's stumped you

The kicker is of course that TJ's first post stated that he was IN FAVOUR of universal Child Benefit as [i]"Universal benefits reduce the poverty trap of high marginal tax rates and increase uptake"[/i].

It's almost like he changes his mind just to have an argument...

With all due respect TJ, at a slight stretch I could use much of the same silly emotive language against you on the pensions thread... Stick to the facts, eh...

Child care costs: £500 per month per child.

If you have more than 1 child, employ a nanny. A friend does for £8K for 1 child. Plus there is no running backwards and forwards, being late, etc. And it's tax deductable.

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.

All tax deductable. And mostly paid for by employers.

A friend does for £8K for 1 child.

Erm.. so isn't that £666 a month then, per child? [i]*confused*[/i]

All tax deductable. And mostly paid for by employers.

Depends really. Speaking for my missus (who has some expenses like these), [i]some[/i] of it is tax deductible and none of it is paid for by her employer (NHS).

Erm.. so isn't that £666 a month then, per child? *confused*

I think it'd still be £8k for two kids. So, £333 per child.

And mostly paid for by employers

Many employers will pay for one professional membership subscription. as for the rest off it - self employed directors are able to claim it back against tax, never come across PAYE employees who have been able to

I think it'd still be £8k for two kids. So, £333 per child.

Ah right. That works. Slightly odd pricing structure though. 😕

never come across PAYE employees who have been able to

You can do it as part of a tax return.

A friend does for £8K for 1 child

Crumbs, the going rate for a nanny in South West London is £30K.

As NZcol alluded, something is badly wrong with the system when you can be better off by not going to work.

We could of course employ the Danish system where by the state highly subsidises all nuresry places, maternity leave can be split between parents and the cost can never be more than 10 % of your salary...then again they do pay 50 % tax to achieve this.

£8k - that must be below minimum wage

working tax credits - so the tax payer can subsidise employers

ITs BS to claim you are better of outof owrk as the system is notw eighted to make sur ethis can almost never happen - its what working family tax credits do basically.

Not BS at all... from this thread, it sounds as if there are a number of families where it is a close call regarding the second earners salary vs childcare costs.

From our own experience, before mrs rkk01 re-trained as a teacher, her pre-child birth earnings would not have covered child-care. The general month to month just about worked, but the childcare costs for school summer holiay periods made working un-viable.

It's BS to claim you are better of out of work

I think many parents see that high childcare costs mean they are better off if one of them quits work and stays at home looking after the kids.

Mate of mine just did exactly that. Quit his job and pulled his daughter out of nursery.

Not an option for single parent families obviously.

£500 for childcare?

Full time nursery for our youngest is £900 per month and that is after a 20% reduction because Mrs Mcavennie works for the company that owns the nursery.

Thing is I have never said that having kids was not a lifestyle choice, or that we were badly off. However, we are not well enough off to lose £140 per month, just like that - as part of the lifestyle choice you look at how much things cost and what you have coming in.

It is certainly not fair to lose the child benefit because one of our incomes may creep above the £42k when other people earning £82k keep it.

scott_mcavennie2 - Member

Thing is I have never said that having kids was not a lifestyle choice, or that we were badly off. However, we are not well enough off to lose £140 per month, just like that

especially when you're told it won't be removed:

"I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means test it, I don’t think that is a good idea" (David Cameron, 5 March 2010)

£900 per month

Ouch!

TJ will be along in a minute to explain to you why your life isn't reality.

Nice quote CaptJon.

Call Me Dave really is a snide little git isn't he?

GrahamS - Member

The kicker is of course that TJ's first post stated that he was IN FAVOUR of universal Child Benefit as "Universal benefits reduce the poverty trap of high marginal tax rates and increase uptake".

It's almost like he changes his mind just to have an argument...

Not at all - I can agree with you over that and still be able to call your bullshine that £42000 pa is barely enough to live on.

It really is laughable how you can claim this is so and then try to justify it by bleating about your high living cost when the things you are claiming as high living costs simply are unaffordable to the vast majority of people - however the cheap alternatives are beneath you.

Renting flats in a cheaper areas and working shift work opposite to your partner - which saves the two main costs you complain of is simply rejected out of hand.

We pay for a childminder that has just decided to pop up her charges by 50p an hour for our little lad. Now paying 146.25 per week for 32.5 hours childcare, all payable monthly in advance.

With the impending Child Tax Credit cuts this will seriously damage our finances as a family to near breaking point now, just trying to get through it is hard. April will be a trying time for us, not even been told what we will get cut to if indeed we will.

We both work because we have to, there is no other choice at all.

Bigbloke - are you in the 40% tax band? or are you living in the reality that most of us are of average wages or less?

God no not in the 40% tax band. I consider myself/wife as average possibly below average to be fair at a combined basic work income before tax of £40k-£42k a year.

your bullshine that £42000 pa is barely enough to live on.

I didn't say that. I pointed out that if that is your only household income then you are below the national average household income, and only a bit above the median.

i.e. quite far from the "well off" "top 10% wealthiest people in the UK" nonsense.

Hence, [u]some[/u] people can be earning £42k will still feel the pinch of losing these benefits.

Somehow I doubt you'd find this quite so "laughable" if I was talking about a couple of Band 3/4 nurses who sometimes found things a bit tight on their combined salary.

Despite the fact they'd actually be taking home more than Mrs £42k and they'd still be entitled to benefits on top of that.

Renting flats in a cheaper areas and working shift work opposite to your partner - which saves the two main costs you complain of is simply rejected out of hand.

I didn't reject them - I said how can you claim someone is "well off" "wealthy" "top 10%" and then admit that to get by they might need to give up property ownership, rent somewhere smaller in a cheaper and change career to one with night shifts??

God no not in the 40% tax band. I consider myself/wife as average possibly below average to be fair at a combined basic work income before tax of £40k-£42k a year.

You're not effected then.

I may be by the time it's due, I will make adjustments to compensate for losing this. Cancelling the eldest's swimming lessons being one she can swim well now so they've fulfilled what we started them for. I don't mind but what I do mind is that because of my wage I will probably lose it but others on a much higher combined income than me by about £20k can keep it. That's what makes this method of doing it unfair not that I should keep it, I don't need it but it's very handy as my wife works part time to help with the childcare issues. It pays for the likes of swimming lessons, shoes, uniforms, school trips and their school meals.

How can I claim that - because it is the simple truth

earning £42000+ puts you in the top 10% of earners and therefore amongst the wealthiest in the country.

If its your only household income then you do not have childcare costs unless you are a single parent

Big bloke, we had a letter recently saying household income over 26k makes you ineligible for CTC. Not sure how this would affect the childcare portion discount stuff, but i would reckon you would be ruled out of that too. Can you or your partner get the tax free childcare vouchers through work?

Surely we need to encourage those in the higher tax bands to procreate and expande the gene pool with their talents that have made them higher rate tax payers? Not saying all higher rate tax payers are intelligent, I mean there are footballers, and bankers....oh hang on, maybe not such a good idea.

How about giving enhanced child benefit to graduates?

The gene pool will benefit from their intellect, as things stand anyone graduating in the past 10 years can probably ill afford to have kids.

Bit of government eugenics needed?

Not BS at all... from this thread, it sounds as if there are a number of families where it is a close call regarding the second earners salary vs childcare costs.

Go into the JC + and they will do you a calculation [ they call it the better off calculation FWIW ] and tell you how much better or worse of you will be...just take your NI details.

I didn't say that. I pointed out that if that is your only household income then you are below the national average household income, and only a bit above the median.

i.e. quite far from the "well off" "top 10% wealthiest people in the UK" nonsense.

Hence, some people can be earning £42k will still feel the pinch of losing these benefits.