MSE News: The hidden Budget benefits cut at £25,000

Paulgonnabedebtfree

runmichellerun wrote: »

Here we go with the backlash on the budget. I personally think it was very well thought out, and they're doing what they have to in order to sort out the mess we're in.

It really is quite simple. If you can't afford a child then don't have one. Stop relying on the government to give you money all the time and then, maybe, the rest of the country can get back on its feet.

It's not like we need any more in the way of population in this world anyway.

As a single person with no children, I sometimes get a vague feeling that I am a cash cow. However, imposing a direct cut on families who have already budgeted for their family size may end up causing excessive hardship. It might have been better to start the clock for new births only in say, a year from now.
However, such cuts are not always as harsh as they first appear. I haven't read the fine print but it's often the case that where one benefit is cut, another goes up. It may well be the case that if their is a reduced income from tax/child credits, there might be a bit more council tax or housing benefit to claim.
Although this has often been the case in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if this lot have plugged up this issue.
This coalition may well get this nasty stuff through now, but watch it all fall apart when they get around to the fine print of the proposed proportional representation.

Deepmistrust

KimYeovil wrote: »

Lazy breeder couples who manage sixteen hours of work between them are still being completely supported by this obscene coalition. But still their lobbyists whinge? Un

---

believable.

Thoroughly agree, it's about time we did something about those free-loading Royals and their breed of parasites.

pault123

Deepmistrust wrote: »

So should we pay them to have lavish pointless lifestyles,

So if you choose not to have kids your living a "lavish pointless lifestyle" ?

I think someone needs to get a grip! :rotfl:

Next you'll be telling me everyone should get married and waste £20k on a piece of paper!

Jowo_2

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

.. However, imposing a direct cut on families who have already budgeted for their family size may end up causing excessive hardship. It might have been better to start the clock for new births only in say, a year from now.

so if there's a change of income or expenses, it requires a re-budget. any change for any reason in household income or expenditure requires a rethink rather than just blundering on.

some of the changes don't yet come in for a while or won't be felt for a while (in the case of frozen benefits)

though it was only imposed in detail yesterday, there was plenty of information to suggest that household income would be affected after the election due to changes in the taxation and benefits system to prompt people to have a bit of a rethink if they were going to be affected...

surely only an ostrich type of personality or an over confident one would have assumed they would be completely untouched by the budget before the actual details were announced?

Deepmistrust

pault123 wrote: »

So if you choose not to have kids your living a "lavish pointless lifestyle" ?

I think someone needs to get a grip! :rotfl:

Next you'll be telling me everyone should get married and waste £20k on a piece of paper!

Clearly you need to learn to read.

It was in response to the poster who suggested that CHILDLESS couples should get WorkingTax Credits, as opposed to low-income familes.

Why are you dribbling about marriage for?

viktory

emweaver wrote: »

I suspect people could afford children at the time due to the income they were receiving also if you both work full time prior to having children what is wrong with wanting to stay at home to help raise the child? You pay enough tax whilst youve been working so why not get some rewards

This attitude makes me so angry. Tax is not a great big pot that you pay into, before taking out your 'share'. It does not work like that.

I have no problem at all with people staying at home to raise their children - multiple children in some cases - but I don't want to have to pay for your lifestyle choice.

DX2

If they earn £25,000 a year they will get £545 in the current and next tax year (2010/11 and 2011/12). But from 2012/13, this will fall to £460.

So in theory what about £7.08 per week.

missymugwump

21twinkle wrote: »

so - all these poor families who chose to have children will have to survive on a eighty five pounds per year less than they would have done up to now ?
Is this news ?
Maybe i am being synical - but why should someone earning £25,000 get a penny in so called tax credits - let alone someone on £40,000 ?
They chose to have children and should look after them - and i feel that childless couples should get tax credits for not costing the government so much (no schooling etc)
what do you think of that proposal ?

I agree If you can't feed them don't breed them ! and yes I am a parent of 2
The entire benefit system needs re writing it's a farce

pault123

I think the biggest concern is 6 children families who have been claiming £103k a year!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7849515/Budget-2010-thousands-could-be-evicted-because-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html

Deepmistrust

pault123 wrote: »

I think the biggest concern is 6 children families who have been claiming £103k a year!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7849515/Budget-2010-thousands-could-be-evicted-because-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html

I sincerely would like to see an example of a two parent, six child family living with an elderly relative in a home in central London claiming £103k per year in housing benefit.
Lol, really I would.

EDIT: Oh wait, are they talking about the Royals when the Queen Mother was alive?