Emergency Budget: tax credit cuts for millions

Hsl500

Hiya does anybody know if the DLA will be for kids who claim too?
I have 3 boys on DLA 2 have Aspergers and ADHD and my 3yr old has mild cerabal palsy ( mobility problems)
Im not worried if its the case as all boys need extra care and we have so many agencies involved with them and others who say can not cope with them as that bad but was just wondering
thanks x

Deepmistrust

krisskross wrote: »

It is the parents responsibility to support their offspring certainly not the tax payers and I think you will find you are totally incorrect in suggesting the population needs to be increased.

Personally I would have felt a total failure as a parent if I had brought children into this world to live in poverty, knowing that I could not afford to support them.

We live on a fixed income, spending perhaps £100 a week for everything including food, utilities, council tax etc. Even if all those things attracted VAT (most of them don't) I think we could manage to find the extra couple of quid a week we would need.

It is totally fair that everyone who has enjoyed the fat years under a Labour Government, and this will undoubtedly be people with children, should now have to make a small sacrifice to get the country's finances back on track.

Parents and even children are citizens of the country in which the government is elected to look after the interests of it's citizens.

If we live in a country that means many people on low wages, cannot afford adequate housing, and that the state cannot assist in providing enough affordable housing, then benefits are going to have to exist, to support children and support families.
Or would you prefer work houses?

I agree that those that enjoyed "the fat years" should have to make sacrifices. Sadly you are confusing who those people are, instead prefering to call for already pressed families to make the sacrifices in place those that caused this mess - as they will not be suffering at all.

I can never undestand the unscientific argument that only wealthy people should procreate.

tizzy333

I'm not sure, but are you saying that he draws dividends and doesn't declare them to the CSA? Or that the CSA still don't consider him able to pay anything (more) even taking into account his dividends? (i.e. his living costs with his new family are only just met with his wage and dividends?)

he draws dividends and does declare them and the CSA don't consider him able to pay anything, yes as his new partner doesn't work his living costs are supported by him alone and the CSA consider there to be no available income for his own kids

EDIT: And are you saying you have evidence that he is working for cash/undeclared payments?

no I have no evidence

krisskross

emweaver wrote: »

Quite a few families will now have to pay for school meals then, but if you only have an income of 13k before tax then £10-£15 a week for school meals is quite a lot

Indeed and I could never afford school meals for our children even though we both worked. They all took packed lunches, although perhaps not to the standard of what is expected in lunchboxes these days. Mine got 2 rounds of bread with a filling plus an apple or banana and water to drink from the tap provided at school.

Deepmistrust

tizzy333 wrote: »

he draws dividends and does declare them and the CSA don't consider him able to pay anything, yes as his new partner doesn't work his living costs are supported by him alone and the CSA consider there to be no available income for his own kids



no I have no evidence

OK, so it sounds, in all honesty, like he is managing on a small income and having to support his new family?

There is nothing to suggest there is anything untoward going on, though I fully understand your frustration that the CSA considers his expense towards his "new" family over yours.

Deepmistrust

krisskross wrote: »

Indeed and I could never afford school meals for our children even though we both worked. They all took packed lunches, although perhaps not to the standard of what is expected in lunchboxes these days. Mine got 2 rounds of bread with a filling plus an apple or banana and water to drink from the tap provided at school.

The reasoning behind many low income families receiving free hot dinners, is because those hot dinners are sometimes the only decent food some children eat all week.
Sadly, that is true for many families.

THRIFTY_GIRL

emweaver wrote: »

Quite a few families will now have to pay for school meals then, but if you only have an income of 13k before tax then £10-£15 a week for school meals is quite a lot

Take a packed lunch instead. We are a middle income family and school meals cost £1.75 per child per day. I can easily do a healthy packed lunch for approx £1 per day. This is the option we have to take to avoid costs racking up.

I only have one child at school, but I can imagine what it is like if you have say all 3 children there at the same time. It is perks like this that discourage parents from taking up employment. Everyone must take their share of the cutbacks, though I agree some cutbacks are unfair this isn't one to get worked up about.

Charliestwins

Could someone help me work out what what will happen to my tax credits please as my head is spinning with all these figures.

Dp works full time £27,500 + company car (tax letter from company to declare said £2012)

Me sahm

4 (13,5,5,3) children inc 1 who i receive lower rate care dla ( cerebral palsy) and i get the disability part in my tax credits.

Help please x

krisskross

Deepmistrust wrote: »

The reasoning behind many low income families receiving free hot dinners, is because those hot dinners are sometimes the only decent food some children eat all week.
Sadly, that is true for many families.

This would be because the child related benefits are not used to look after the children. You cannot have it all ways. You want loads of money given to families with children but still want taxpayers to fund the things the money is supposed to pay for.

There was a thread on here from a lady about to lose child tax credit and child benefit as her 'child' was 19. She was losing almost £125 a week!! We are not talking peanuts here and certainly enough to provide decent food.

What has happened is that children are effectively subsidising the parents. Babies are providing the wherewithal for luxury items for parents.

And I also believe that a blank cheque wasn't handed to the banks. I understood that the government now own part of SOME of them and the country actually stands to make money on the investment in the banks.

THRIFTY_GIRL

krisskross wrote: »

It is totally fair that everyone who has enjoyed the fat years under a Labour Government, and this will undoubtedly be people with children, should now have to make a small sacrifice to get the country's finances back on track.

I take it you do not have children:cool:

Before you start making generalisations I think you need to look at the small print. Just because people have children does not mean that they have been filling their pockets so to speak. Yes, there is always a minority that does get it this way but please do not generalise.

George Osborne mentioned the availability of tax credits in some instances for earners of up to £83k. I wonder how many examples of that he can find in practce? very few I expect. To get £545 on earnings of £75k, you would have had to earn less than £50k in the previous tax year.

In reality, child tax credit payments drop to £545 per annum at a family income of less than £25k for 1 child and £29k for 2 children. This doesn't include provision for childcare costs, but again, these payments are only available for relatively low earners. Yes there are families with lots of offspring, but again these are the exception not the norm.

Yes, that £545 stays as it is for up to £50k income currently, but I thought the Chancellor was very misleading in his budget speech suggesting £83k as the upper limit. No wonder people like you are resentful.