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 7×24 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.

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

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.

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

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

Lots of people in London won’t be affected by the change, because they don’t earn much. Where do they live?

probably in places they wished they did not? Have you seen the poorer parts of big cities?

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.

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 feckless 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?

So whats your point caller, should CB be a universal benefit or not?

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.

is £50k plus ‘Middle England’?

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?

tonyd – Member

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.

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