Emergency Budget: tax credit cuts for millions

cherrytree6477

emweaver wrote: »

I also agree with earlier comments thwe 15 hrs free a week for childcare is to prepare the child for school and its good for a child to interact with others their age as it aids their developement in particular speech and confidence. DD was very very shy wouldnt talk to anyone and preschool has bought her out of herself and shes looking forward to school as its not so much to adapt too as a child staying with their mum 24/7

I also agree with this point, also, most nurseries will let you adapt the hours, if its a private nursery, school nurseries generally dont..... I think if you want to change the way you use the hours, you will generally have to find a private nursery

DaiJoA

I agree with the abolishment of the healthy pregnancy grant - the first four months would be when it would be most needed for the best possible health of the baby anyway. I don't know anyone who got it but I would imagine that it would have been spent elsewhere other than on what it was intended for - the whole scheme was a Labour votes-buyer anyway, so its only fair that it should go; all these little cuts add up to big savings if they are carried out in the right areas.

Something that I'm also surprised hasn't been mentioned (other than the new medicals with DLA) is the current provision within the DLA scheme for alcoholics being able to claim DLA; alcoholism costs the NHS so much money and yet these people are just left to literally drown themselves in drink by being handed an almost responsibility-free existence, with full housing and council tax benefits paid, water rates paid in some areas, then given (in some cases) over £100 per week, where does the government think this money is going to go other than on more alcohol?

MissMoneypenny

emweaver wrote: »

I also agree with earlier comments thwe 15 hrs free a week for childcare is to prepare the child for school and its good for a child to interact with others their age as it aids their developement in particular speech and confidence. DD was very very shy wouldnt talk to anyone and preschool has bought her out of herself and shes looking forward to school as its not so much to adapt too as a child staying with their mum 24/7

I use to walk to every playgroup I could find each week, as soon as my children were born. That way they socialised from babies and got a wide cirlce of friends. Plus I made a load of friends too.

So mine had 3 playgroups a week since birth, plus they got extra socialising when us mums met at each others houses for coffee every week.

LizzieS_2

dmg24 wrote: »

Can we have some figures to back up the statement please? It is difficult to quantify millions. Thank you.

Gains and losses quoted separately for those earning under 40K:

Taper rate goes up at both levels, if your earnings are 20K you lose £271.60pa, if you earn £30,000 you lose £471.60pa from next April.

Gain £150pa per child from next April (additional to normal increase).

Baby element of an additional £545 removed from next April (includes the extra age of up to 3 which Labour had proposed to add).

Increases in income above 25K currently do not affect awards - from next April it is reduced to 10K and then 5K 2 years after. (Back to the days of masses of overpayments)

Elements will increase by Consumer Prices Index (usually lower than current RPI used)

If on benefits:

Gain £150 per child from next April (plus normal increases).

Lose baby element of £545 (as above).

From 2012/13:

Minimum allowance of £545 is removed from a guaranteed income to be part of taper rate. This could wipe out awards for those only receiving £545pa (or reduce it) from next April.

50+ element removed.

Introduces a new disregard for reductions to income. Currently if you end up out of work your award would be recalculated on your total income - you will have to stand a loss of 2.5K and they will recalculate it on any further loss. Basically translates that you are punished for losing income by up to £1025 compared to what you would get under current rules (and get an insult of cont based JSA for 26 weeks).

Reduce backdating for new claims and changes from 3 months to 1 month

Child element goes up by £60pa per child

Motherhubbard_2

Can anyone tell me what this means in the budget??

There will be changes to the income levels (thresholds) and withdrawal rates for claiming Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit from April 2011. These include:

• raising the second withdrawal rate (the amount taken off your tax credit entitlements depending on your income) to 41% from 6.67%

sp1987

mitchaa wrote: »

I have to say, this is the 1st post I'v ever read of someone supporting this pointless grant.

Even expectant mothers reliant on benefits have stated it is a waste of money. The £190 isn't spent on apples and bananas, it's spent elsewhere.

It only came in a year or so ago, so it wont be missed.

A scheme like this should be the 1st to go in my opinion. Totally pointless.

Quite.

I know it is given this late to ensure that payments aren't made repeatedly for pregnancies that do not continue long enough to be viable (don't mean it to sound so horrific), but by providing anything that late, it does not help at all even if one were to buy £190.00 worth of healthy food. If you have not got the money for the last 15 weeks of healthy food I dare say you would have probably not lasted long enough to get your grant anyway.

It was a massive waste of money. I already ate healthily (not before or since being pregnant, but during!). I didn't waste it on designer clothes for my son, I bought a cot. But still it was not intended to be the ''cot in pregnancy'' grant. There is the SSMG for those on lower incomes to buy all those bits and bobs with so they won't lose out with it gone. The things you honestly need at birth runs to about £90 if breast fed (nappies, clothes, moses basket) + a car seat (which you could probably borrow if you knew someone with a young child).

I think getting rid of it will be beneficial. If they really wanted women to eat healthily during pregnancy they could provide all expectant mothers with income under x with vouchers for fruit and vegetables.

By giving money they provide those responsible mothers who eat healthily anyway with money to spend on something practical and for their child, yet not what was intended, so no extra health benefits and £190 down. Those mothers who would not otherwise eat healthily for the sake of their child would then have £190.00 to spend on cigarettes, alcohol, rent, petrol or some designer clothes. Still no health gains.

I can't see how there is any health benefit whatsoever, except the minute amount of people that would spend over what they could afford on healthy food early in pregnancy because they have that £190.00 to recoup losses post 25 weeks. But that would be solved by vouchers and encourages debt accumulation anyway.

Can't see any benefit.

woozywendy

DaiJoA wrote: »

One thing that I hoped would have been addressed but hasn't is the 'funding' for children from age 3 for 15hrs of nursery care/education each week, which sounds great on paper until you realise that those 15hrs cant be taken as two seperate whole-day sessions, or anything remotely resembling anything that could allow the mother to go to work - the 15hrs are worked out as five 2 1/2 hour sessions, one per day, which is totally and utterly useless when it comes to helping the mother back into work, and so therefore a complete waste of public money.

Unless you are lucky enough to have someone to drop off and pick up your child, these hours only go towards lowering the childcare bill or as some 'free time' for the mother - there are countless single mothers at my childs' pre-school who take their children there every day then go back to their paid-for flats to watch Jeremy Kyle etc...don't they realise how precious these pre-school days are? My child only goes twice a week as I'd much rather we spent the rest of the time together.

The age threshold has just been lowered to two and a half so even more money is wasted - why can't they make it just one whole day session, or something that would actually be of some use to people like me who would love a job but cannot find one with suitable hours to work around my child (and because we are living together my partner and I aren't entitled to anything - I would rather go without treats and enjoy being with my child).

Am disappointed that this child care provision is never addressed.

At my school nursery the children can come in either:

1-Every morning for 3 hours

2-Every afternoon for 3 hours

3-All day Monday and Tuesday and Wedneday morning

4-Wednesday afternoon all day Thursday and Friday

You can send your child full time if you want and pay for the other 15 hours.

AnxiousMum

missk9 wrote: »

Re: Income support.... moved down to youngest being 5...

I do support this idea, but where are all these term time only jobs going to come from? I am having trouble getting a term time only job myself!

Most of them come from being involved with the school (Primaries especially) - helping out at reading time, pta, generally getting involved. Most of the part time employees at my kids' school and their old one are parents who started out this way and now employed in various posts that have arisen.

Also look for companies who deal with schools as their customers. My entire customer base is made up of schools from nurseries through to universities - so working term time, school hours but don't have to be in a school all day!

Kate78

So they've abolished the £190 mid-pregnancy shopping spree at the taxpayers expense?

About bl00dy time :T

Motherhubbard_2

Can anyone tell me what this means in the budget??

There will be changes to the income levels (thresholds) and withdrawal rates for claiming Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit from April 2011. These include:

• raising the second withdrawal rate (the amount taken off your tax credit entitlements depending on your income) to 41% from 6.67%