child benefit..

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 😀

Cameron claimed Disability Living Allowance

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 might 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!

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.

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.

Fair enough, you win. I bet the dinner parties around his place are just AWESOME too.

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 not 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 might 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

Nope it is ONLY a gateway to allow the parents to claim carers allowance though ….that would be an intersting question dio they claim that too?

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 Childcare cost rises ‘may make parents quit their jobs’ (BBC News)

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.

Exactly as I said early on in this thread:
Miss CD is from Denmark, a country often put forward as having one of the best standards of living and social care in the World. Their child benefits (and may other) are universal and most women are only out of work for a year when they have a child where as in the UK women often have to take a career break for 5 years as childcare costs are so high. Consequently they have far more women in you positions that we do. It could be argued that in the UK by achieving ‘fairness’ based on salary we could help create (continue) gender inequality.

Come on – get real here

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

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 “well off” 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

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