[Closed] child benefit

So you were earning £86k a year but were struggling? **** me what am I doing wrong. Admittedly only 1 kid but we have been fine on less than 35k for the last couple of years. This year mrs has done more work so we have more income which has mostly been saved. I really am puzzled.

For those saying that £50k etc is plenty to live on, and they manage fine on average income, I did some calculations.

If I was a sole earner on £65k a year, renting at £1k a month with four kids, then I receive no help from the govt.

In exactly the same circumstances, but the single earner on national average wage (£26,500 according to this [url= https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fbusiness-20442666&ei=_HbpULO2D8PQ0QX_qYHAAw&usg=AFQjCNEjQx_eIZQ_oEWy-Zc4FNmnFiPglQ&sig2=3P4TZ1xd6r-eKvPYMJ9rvQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k ]link[/url]) then the govt will top that up by another £20,257.76 (figures from http://www.turn2us.entitledto.co.uk). That figure is made up of Tax Credits £8,539.79, Housing Benefit £8,571.97, Child Benefit £3,146.

So the difference between average earnings and someone on the face of it earning nearly 2.5 times average, is actually much nearer 1.3 times. Still more, still a lot of money, but the focus on gross income is misleading - the net take home per person in the household is more relevant.

The [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/22/how-wealthy-you-compared ]guardian [/url]has a calculator that looks at where you come in the UK wealth stakes using after tax income. On the figures above, the rich £65k person is classified as "59% HAVE A LOWER INCOME THAN YOU - You are in the squeezed middle: income levels have not risen significantly and you're feeling the pinch".

The person on average wages - "51% HAVE A LOWER INCOME THAN YOU - you are in the squeezed middle: income levels have not risen significantly and you're feeling the pinch"

So neither are near poverty then and the wealthier one is wealthier - no offence but what was your point?

How does it work with average children numbers [ 1.8 so lets say 2]and average rent [£725]? The tax system will always have anomalies but better to look at the average [ as this tax rise does not use household income it is a rubbish , but cheap, and unfair [ tories for you eh], way of doing this

back up to about x2 then i assume on average?? Your links would take too long to do properly

Not saying they don't go mental. However at the time my wife was grieving very deeply and getting over a hugely difficult pregnancy where neither if our twins was likely to survive, had to get over the stress of two of her children being in neonatal ICU for many weeks, the continuing health issues if said children... Not an easy time...

Besides we would not have been hugely better off if she didn't work...

BTW was not claiming poverty just saying that the benefit was tremendously helpful and that perhaps others may now suffer in similar circumstances - painting the picture if you will...

Also worth remembering the costs of living have increased in the few years since my example... Probably by c£300 p/m.

Costs have increased by 300 quid? Really? I AM POOR A.ND NEED HELP

Look at average utility costs and food prices before using capitals.

That figure is made up of Tax Credits £8,539.79, Housing Benefit £8,571.97, Child Benefit £3,146.

I think you've got your figures wrong, salary of 26,500 and 1 child you wouldn't even qualify for tax credits, 4 children and you'd get less than a quarter of what you have stated.

anagallis-arvensis. I posted simply to illustrate how it was for us. You experience is obviously different but does not make mine less relevant or valid. I can understand that and don't have a need to challenge your approach, choices or experience. Perhaps you could try the same...?

Bless, I feel sorry for you now, I might start up a collection.

You could but considering your stated income and the associated taxation position it would only be my money paid in my tax that subsidises your taxation position coming back to me from your own donation. So for that reason don't bother...

what is she going to live on?

Your income.

On second thought perhaps you could make a donation? Donate yourself to my toolbox - it is missing a tool or two...

I wasnt going to pay in myself. I was going to stand outside shops and rattle a can for the squeezed middle.
Mods, mods help the poor richman called me a tool and my world is caving in and I'm too poor to afford therapy.

Cost of living irrelevant here
But if you are and its a problem that you can't afford to look after yourselves
let alone bring a child into the world in which will demand more money
you cannot find yourselves to live on.
IE Dont have any kids.

Unless the government will make up the shortfall of course.

Don't worry about universal human rights - just the benefit budget...

If you're earning 4500 (at a guess - you don't say how much your pension payments are), and 80 quid is enough to make a big difference, then you are seriously overstretched - that's less than 2% of your take home.

And I notice you calculate everything 'after pensions' - whilst pensions are lovely and all that, the purpose of benefits isn't to subsidize your cushy pension surely - and I bet you were paying more than 80 quid a month into that. And 400 quid a month for a car - I bet you didn't drive the cheapest car that you could get that fitted the specifications of your company scheme? And I bet you weren't squeezing that family of five into a two bedroom flat in a not so nice area?

I might be wrong obviously, but I would be surprised if that ever so expensive lifestyle didn't include quite a lot of 'essential spending' on things that people on normal salaries either don't get (massive pensions), or can't afford (big houses, more expensive cars than needed).

Cant say Im a big fan of universal benefits anyway, but Im sure they could have worked out a better way of doing it...

Ditto.

Funny my wife stays at home and looks after our kids, we manage on 1 not very high salary. We took the decision for my wife to give up work, as its much better for the kids, especially in the first 5 years. We wouldn't have had it any other way.

I guess it's just a choice some people make, to still have a fancy house and nice cars or well brought up kids.

Just seems to me there are too many people living way beyond their means.

as its much better for the kids, especially in the first 5 years.

The research on this is very mixed and it s nothing like as clear cut as you suggest

I guess it's just a choice some people make, to still have a fancy house and nice cars or well brought up kids.

to still have a fancy house and nice cars or well brought up kids.

Do you think nurseries are bad places?

Stevewhyte I think your point of view is fine but any working mothers would get really upset about it and its only based on your opinion. I dont care you can say what you like to me but just be aware its only an opinion. My son goes to nursery two days a week when the mrs works. It might go up go three soon. In comparison to other kids I know who dont go to nursery he seems a lot more mentally robust.

I find it odd that anyone would think keeping their kids out of nursery is a good thing - maybe 5 days a week for a 6 month old might be too much though!

what they are saying is that it is good for kids to be brought up by their parents* - I find it odd you have never heard this view articulated anywhere before

You could also heed your own advice a-a - its not like you were overly civil when discussing it with the "rich man"

* without pointing out the obvious it depends on many factors not least what the parents are like and what the nursery is like. I dont think there is an actual law of nature here that shows which is best in all circumstances.

3 bedroom house £150k in Birmingham, so take a guess at the quality of the area. Try buying a year old Audi/BMWMercedes 4 door saloon over two years for less than £400 p/m.

Also child benefit for 3 children is 4.6% of £4500...

[img] [/img]

Children that *need* benefits.
(No four door saloon was harmed in the taking of this picture)

Ha ha! Funnily enough I believe in some universal benefits - and more solidly applied and constructed taxation as well. I also think re-distribution of wealth needs to cross international borders. There again, I am a socialist.

jamj1974 - Member
Also child benefit for 3 children is 4.6% of £4500...

Good little earner

You could also heed your own advice a-a - its not like you were overly civil when discussing it with the "rich man"

my point easnt about being civil, I am pretty uncivilised as you have noted. It was about dressing up opinion as fact.

...he seems a lot more mentally robust.

Were does it say that it's desirable for kids to be 'mentally robust'. What age is best to acquire this robustness and how robust do they need to be?
Not cry at the beginning of 'Up'? Is lump in throat allowed? 🙂

I get dust in my eye during up... Must be unbalanced.

Good point well made Ianmunro

As for that argument about childcare. We made a choice for my wife to be a stay at home mum, it was not a difficult choice, when you think abut the options. I be most people would choose it if money was not part of the equation. We decided to take money out of it ourselves.

I have a pretty good background knowledge, both wife and I had stay at home mums, wife was a nursery teacher and I am secondary and have seen the downsides of other people bring up your young children.

Things clearly change when they start to get older, particularly in secondary school.

But even then having a parent at home always knowing where the children are and looking after their welfare seems to me like the best option. Many of you clearly disagree but then thankfully you are not bringing my kids up. Happy days. 😀 😀

Steve. I think your option can work really well. Certainly wouldn't completely disagree.

I struggle with long sentences, but there's already inequality in the tax system:

A couple on £25k each pay less tax than a couple with a single earner on £50k, for example. Someone in the 40% tax bracket makes bigger savings when making use of ISAs, pensions or bike to work schemes than someone in the lower tax bands. The child benefit changes are just another example.

The changes coming in which will impact on lower income families are a bigger deal than this.

what they are saying is that it is good for kids to be brought up by their parents

Is this a 7x24 thing now? Kids learn a lot from nurseries IME. My son loves it and I wish it worked out so I could send him more often.

By mentally robust I mean he doesnt fall into floods of tears if his mum leaves the room or cry his eyes out if some bigger kid accidently knocks him over. All just opinion anyway. He did a brilliant fake cry and bottom lip pout when he watched Up last week so he obviously as heartless as me!!

I agree Miketually. As said earlier was trying only to illustrate how things in my experience were not as simple as people might assume. I am more concerned with changes to DLA for example and the ramifications this has for those relying on it.

A £60k salary may seem a lot if you live on £25k salary, but if you've 3 kids the Govt has suddenly taken away a very large chunk of your 'spare' cash. This is the real problem for those folk.

And a £60k salary won't buy you a house in many places, without a seriously large deposit.

And for those with a company and employ your spouse, just make sure they either actually do some work and/or earn income. This is what we've done in the past and while it takes 'advantage' of the tax system, what would you do - pay more tax than you have to?

It should be universal but the whole things needs to be looked at as a whole. The Danish system puts the focus on the family and at the same time encourages women to work if they which by much cheaper childcare, flexible working hours and the ability to share maternity / paternity leave. Giving money to people so they can spend it on stuff for themselves not the kids is not a good idea.

b r - Member
A £60k salary may seem a lot if you live on £25k salary, but if you've 3 kids the Govt has suddenly taken away a very large chunk of your 'spare' cash. This is the real problem for those folk.

And a £60k salary won't buy you a house in many places, without a seriously large deposit.

Really, how about living within your means, just like people on £25k have to.

If £60k won't buy you the house then look at smaller house or a different area just like the rest of us.

Yeah people who work in London could live in Birmingham with that £60k easy and commute to London if they have to.

Interestingly when the Gov't reduced the amount of vouchers higher earners could pay for using salary sacrifice they just moved new people onto the lower levels, rather than everyone as is happening with child benefit.

Who in their right mind would choose to commute from birmingham to London every day? Thats like saying we could all sell our houses and live in yurts - we could but it aint going to happen for most folk.

Which is only an option if you live somewhere with affordable housing - that place is not london

Its possible your job ties you to London and therefore you have to live there

I think that is what jamj meant when he said not as simple as it seems and it is foolish to think your circumstances have no affect and that you can fully control them all
I hope you teach children to look for nuances in your day job rather than spur absolutes at you

For example my mate works in "media" [ its quit eniche his job]and its all in london there are basically no jobs doing what he does elsewhere so he is tied to London* whether he likes it or not. London is more expensive than here so his money does not go as far.
*for sure some in his industry could leave but not all as it is mainly [95% +] done in that there London.

Of course he could retrain etc but it not just as simple as you are making out with absolute statements.