[i]Really, how about living within your means, just like people on £25k have to.[/i]
Great post... The reason people are annoyed is because they've suddenly had a big chunk of money taken away, not that they weren't (or were) living within their means.
[i]If £60k won't buy you the house then look at smaller house or a different area just like the rest of us. [/i]
And where would you recommend, with work? So the average house price in the UK is £250k with terraces coming in at £210k.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stm
Its possible your job ties you to London and therefore you have to live there
Lots of people in London won't be affected by the change, because they don't earn much. Where do they live?
And where would you recommend, with work? So the average house price in the UK is £250k with terraces coming in at £210k.
Next time you drop your kid off at school, ask their teacher where they live. Then look there.
"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."
We don't have a big house! I could move to a different area - but will I find a job easily or will the increased commuting costs remove the savings from a cheaper mortgage. How about I stay in the area I spent most of my childhood in and not lose quality of life by commuting further. I live in Birmingham, not Solihull or Warwick or Banbury. Birmingham is pretty cheap! I live within my means and pay a lot in to the system - why should I not get a little out of it. As a household we pay somewhat greater than £3k in tax and NI. People who earn less and pay less tax are not living within their means - they are also living within mine, my higher taxation subsidises their lower taxation. I have no problem with that until either: -
1). People who rely on benefits through need are suffering as they are withdrawn
2). People who contribute less than I (In pure financial terms) get really sanctimonious about what small amount I receive and say because I have used it that I am making poor choices etc...
I could say people should make the choices I have to earn more money and pay more tax - I don't however, because it may not be the right thing for them to do at any point in time, or it may not be the choice they are prepared to make.
Your life = your choices. Earn less pay less tax, earn more pay more tax. I don't care but don't feel you have made better choices than I or are occupying the moral high ground because of them. If you are - you are only deluding yourself.
Plenty of people commute B'ham to London and did even in the 70/80s JY. Fast, efficient service, time to work/sleep/socialise on the train. No need to live in the smog (if you live outside Brum). Not much different from other London commutes and better than many that are closer but involve slower trains.
Druidh, still a very good question!!! 😉
And a £60k salary won't buy you a house in many places, without a seriously large deposit.
I think the word "some" rather than many would probably be more accurate. Besides, you don't need a house to raise children.
Br, bit strange those figures? They don't seem to tally with the Land Registry website! Average house price there seems to be about 170k, so a comfortable mortgage on £60k
probably in places they wished they did not? Have you seen the poorer parts of big cities?Lots of people in London won't be affected by the change, because they don't earn much. Where do they live?
London is not the place i would choose to have two kids and 25 k to live on - though we we would not die. I am not sure many of us would tbh and its obviously going to be tougher than doing it up north and will get you less.
Commuting that far is madness IMHO THM. I would not even entertain the thought.
I wouldn't either, but I can see why people do it especially if job requires lots of reading and writing that could be done on a train.
yes but live in Birmingham and work In london
Its one of Dantes layers of hell surely
Lots of ranting about "living within your means like I have to"
Funnily enough I do. What it means is that we need to find extra income or cut our cloth accordingly. We've made the cuts (looks like no holidays this year, satellite TV has gone) and are looking for ways of generating extra income. Preferably without paying income tax on it now....
My grumble is the way this has been implemented. It was income we've relied on in the past year or so. Yes others need it more and I have no issue with that as such, What I do have a problem with is the thresholds for calculation (surely doing it on combined household income of around £90-100k would have addressed most of this) and the hypocrisy it creates (i.e. my neighbours who have higher combined income receive child benefit whereas we don't. Despite costs being the same)
There's a nasty underlying message about how the state values those of us working our proverbials off in middle england as well.
Next election will be a train crash for the tories. Rightly so.
How about doing it on a combined income of £50k, sounds about right.
Things are getting tight for everyone, more so for the lower paid, your not really going to pick up much sympathy crying about how we can't survive on £60k a year. Anyone who thinks so must be a banker and have think skin.
No moral high ground on my part, I just had to make the hard choices, I moved jobs and wife no longer works and we had to move house. Sorry but in this case we have walked the walk and not just spouting the usual bull that most on here do. The tax system seems to be a moving platform right now. I'm paying significantly more in tax with increased pension contributions than I was last year and my income has now be static for 3 years. So fleking what I hear you all say, you care as much about that as I do about someone earning £60k and loosing their CB.
Next election will be a train crash for the tories. Rightly so.
Great, then the blithering idiots that walked us open eyed into this mess can have another go - that or the part timers somehow get out of pre school and into big school...
They're all too busy playing politics than running the country IMO 👿
Oh, and this tortuous argument about living within means... Come on, I'm sure we all do that (mostly) but regardless of income we all end up living and working within an environment that stretches our budget especially in this climate so even a small loss is a PITA...
There's a nasty underlying message about how the state values those of us working our proverbials off in middle england as well.
Isn't it just the same message as "lower" England has been receiving for some time; Times are hard and there is less money to spend so you will lose some benefits.
Still, we're all in it together 😆
There's a nasty underlying message about how the state values those of us working our proverbials off in middle england as well.
Isn't it just the same message as "lower" England has been receiving for some time; Times are hard and there is less money to spend so you will lose some benefits.
Still, we're all in it together 😆
That's the thing Steve I don't need anyone to care - just want less of the gross over-simplification that many employ. From previous posts I am pretty sure you are a teacher, which offers more geographical mobility with your employment - which as you say lets you walk the walk. Got to admit that I am envious of that as due to my specialism, I need to work where big businesses are - which are seldom located out of large cities.
The fact is though Steve, I do actually care that you are earning less in real terms than three years ago, I feel it is not reasonable that you do so - especially when you work for the state. I also would be more concerned if you lost your CB than losing it myself.
This isn't about the haves vs the have nots. This is about the we don't give a shit about anyone but big business/old money Conservatives and the rest of us stuck in the mire not of our own making.
[quote=fizzicist ]
Next election will be a train crash for the tories.
The Labour Party has promised to restore universal child benefit then?
Well said jamj, ask, and fizzicist.
For the record Steve, I also have to live in this area as it is where my work is. My wife's family live in the area so it would be nice to stay here if possible (although admittedly unlikely). I don't work in London. We currently rent a very modest house in a nice area, we'll buy this year but somewhere cheaper. I've moved all over the country (and Europe) with work so have no qualms about moving if we need to, but in my current role that isn't possible so we can't just up sticks and move North. In real terms my salary (private sector) has been going down for the last 10 years or more despite promotions and more and more responsibility. The only benefit I/we have ever received is CB. We have no debt and decent savings, which are being constantly eroded by the governments policy of bailing out the ****less and over borrowed at the expense of the prudent and all of our young.
I may earn decent money, and as I said we're not exactly struggling, but we do have to watch what we spend. I fail to see how this is a bad thing? We certainly don't live above our means and we absolutely don't expect to be subsidised. We don't particularly want to subsidise others to the degree we do, but we don't get a whole lot of choice in that.
I don't expect, need, or want sympathy. The above random outpouring is just my attempt to provide a different perspective to the commonly held stereotype of anyone that doesn't work down a pit for 10p a week.
As jamj says, this isn't (or shouldn't be) about the haves and the have nots. I'd actually suggest that most of us should be classed as have nots since none but the very rich and/or well positioned will be gaining from any of this.
Anyway, enough ranting from me. Thatcher is on the telly in a minute so I'm going to watch that and think naughty thoughts.
We certainly don't live above our means and we absolutely don't expect to be subsidised.
So whats your point caller, should CB be a universal benefit or not?
is £50k plus 'Middle England'?
Well in the top ten percent of earners in the country.
Perhaps this thread should have 'first world problems' in the title?
No, it shouldn't be a universal benefit. The money comes in handy for us, and we'll miss it, but it's not the losing it that bothers me, it's the way they've gone about it. As I said before I think, what bothers me is that a family with an income of almost twice ours gets to keep their CB. If this is to be based on income it should be household income IMO.So whats your point caller, should CB be a universal benefit or not?
I don't think it is. It's enough for those earners to consider themselves middle class if they so wish but I wouldn't. Bank Managers and Headteachers used to be middle class IIRC, what do they earn now?is £50k plus 'Middle England'?
tonyd - MemberAs I said before I think, what bothers me is that a family with an income of almost twice ours gets to keep their CB. If this is to be based on income it should be household income IMO.
Bit of poo-slinging going on in this thread IMO but does anyone not agree with this? Personally I reckon child benefit should be limited- we've only got so much money, it shouldn't be given to people who have least need of it. But that's got to be done right- which means in a way that saves money, and in a way that people can agree is fair.
Bank Managers and Headteachers used to be middle class IIRC, what do they earn now?
Branch managers for the bank I work for tend to be quite young and on well under £30k. A girl I worked with a while back managed three branches in the Welsh valleys, working 12 hour days for £24k pa. Admittedly there are bonuses on top of that if targets are met, but it's not a job I'd do given the salary.
When I was a kid Bank Managers (i.e. branch managers) were important people and (I assume) rewarded accordingly.
Head teachers: afaik £60 - £100k + (secondary school).
But that's got to be done right- which means in a way that saves money, and in a way that people can agree is fair
iirc it was done this way as it was cheap
It would be expensive to work out household income and then apply it and easy if just one person pay higher rate tax.
I think the problem was that if it was done on household income it ran the risk of costing more to administer than to collect- not sure if that is true tbh
Its been implemented in an unfair manner for sure.
They managed to base child tax credits on joint incomes ok. They manage to restrict housing benefit, JSA etc.on joint incomes. The only reason it was originally based on households wih one wage earner paying 40% tax was because CMD thought most voters would fixate on the perceived well off getting stung and miss the fact that he was breaking the taboo of universal benefits. It's based on tbe 50k mark now as they had to backtrack after people at incme levels kicked off about how poorly and unfairly it wa being implemented. All they did was raise the threshold hoping that as fewer people would get caught they'd be less fuss missing the fact that people weren't happy about the mechanism. Personally I don't think households with an incomeof 42.5k should get child benefit.
I earn shit loads*. Living in London is expensive. Yes I could move to the north and my wages/cost of living would reduce / change ratio.
Either way I won't begrudge my kids £80 a month, nor will I let them suffer without it.
Shit happens, what else is there to say?
*edit : added for effect probably not true
[quote=stumpyjon ]Personally I don't think households with an incomeof 42.5k should get child benefit.
What other "universal benefits" shouldn't they get?
I think the whole point of child benefits being a universal benefit is that it's money for the kids' benefit not the parents. Unfortunately it seems that in some poorer families the money doesn't get spent on the kids. Universally providing 2 or 3 school meals a day might be a better use of funds.
Maybe taking just one away is enough Druidh
I always love the way the £x income is earned by the top 10% statistic is brought out. It would be great to know how this is calculated. Is it?
- 90% of income is earned by people earning less than £x
- 90% of people earn less than this amount of £x
- Something else completely different
Can someone clarify?
Someone else mentioned that mud shark. Not much good for the under 5s is it?
- 90% of people earn less than this amount of £x
This generally
Someone else mentioned that mud shark. Not much good for the under 5s is it?
Keep it for preschoolers? Hearing about kids being sent to school without breakfast is just upsetting.
Jamj1974
You could start here:
As I thought. Would love to see the value of each of the remaining percentiles. I imagine there is some significant variance...
Jamj1974
You could start here:
/p>
Nb Chapter 3!!!!!
Sorry double post due to adding nb for ch 3
Thanks THM. I will have a read of that.
They managed to base child tax credits on joint incomes ok.
Yeah, that's a really good example of a nice efficient system which is simple for people to claim, cheap to implement and where they always get their sums right 🙄
Its been implemented in an unfair manner for sure.
Unfair on those who lose CB? Or unfair on those who have neighbours with a higher household income who get to keep it? Because it's the latter there seems to be the most bleating about.
the later was what i meant - I dont think the loss in general is unfair but the implementation has made it unfair for households which is a more sensible measure IMHO.
I not sure whether GO is being unfair or just stupid. But it makes little sense to mix the receipt of benefits (based on households) and their funding (based on Individuals though taxation). But since little of the hotchpotch that is UK taxation makes much sense after so much bodging by politicians over the years, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the latest proposal are based on flawed thinking.
An extra 1%, or whatever it would take (less?) on higher rate tax would have been fairer and cheaper to implement but it's not about fair.
Personally speaking the latter is the best way to highlight the cackhanded way this has been implemented. Do you think that it's right that a family on 99k still gets CB?Unfair on those who lose CB? Or unfair on those who have neighbours with a higher household income who get to keep it? Because it's the latter there seems to be the most bleating about.
I not sure whether GO is being unfair or just stupid
I have this conundrum with all Tories tbh 😀
It's easy to say 'oh you should be able to live in £60k blabla', but if you do earn that much this could still have an impact.
Not everyone is pissing their money up the wall. Some folk might have bought an expensive house for an investment for example or to allow their kids to go to the good school etc. The problem is that this has happened really quickly, and people may have already budgeted for it.
Do you think that it's right that a family on 99k still gets CB?
I don't have a big problem with it, if removing it from them would cost more to implement than it would save. Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don't benefit?
Clearly I'm just rather more pragmatic and less ideological than most on here.
Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don't benefit?
I think the government should be ensuring that families that earn less and get nothing aren't subsidising families that get more. As has been pointed out, there are other benefits/breaks that are calculated in that way; why is this different?
