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

peediedj

DX2 wrote: »

So in theory what about £7.08 per week.

i dont undestand this? do tax credits stop straight away for £40k or £25k? as says in above quote??

moomoomama27

isn't the drop just the family element though? It won;t just be £460 a year tax credits, but the family element will be the only thing that drops on 25k?

divastrop

I'm sorry to use this cliche but the world HAS gone mad. When did having children become a 'lifestyle choice' ? Is this due to people waiting longer and longer to have children, then finding it really difficult to conceive , then rather than admitting to inwardly feeling like a failure they say they waited till they could 'afford' a child ? Is this why so many people are bitter and twisted towards those who maybe have unplanned pregnancies and need some help from the benefit system because the majority of employers pay only minimum wage so they can keep as much profit for themselves as possible, thus making it nigh on impossible for a family to manage on one wage only?
Everybody who calls having kids a 'lifestyle choice' knows someone who's on benefits and has a 40" plasma TV and who's kids eat turkey twizzlers( which don't even exist anymore) for their tea. I believe these people are getting confused between what they read in the Daily Mail and what happens in real life (I think someone wrote a book about that in the 90's...).

All I want to know is, have MP's all accepted a pay cut as part of this emergency budget?

DX2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Ah, so now we are judging benefits recipients on the vast study you have done, by thinking you know the circumstances of two famillies on your street. Two families on your street. Wow, just wow.

It just gets better.:rotfl:

*yawn* when you learn to read a post love, come back and perhaps we may debate until that time :wave:

DX2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

In fact, I think I'll just repost this for good measure:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

seven-day-weekend

Haven't read the thread, but think that only the very poorest families should get financial assistance to bring up their children - and 'poorest' is NOT £25000, it is about half that, imho.

I personally thought it was a very fair budget.

toonbaz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Haven't read the thread, but think that only the very poorest families should get financial assistance to bring up their children - and 'poorest' is NOT £25000, it is about half that, imho.

I personally thought it was a very fair budget.

i agree, but i also believe the poorest recieve far too much and becom too reliant upon the financial assistance they get. i wouldnt want to see money taken away from those that need it most but they have to clamp down on those that can work but chose not to due to the fact they can get thousands per year from benefits.

purplebutterfly

divastrop wrote: »

When did having children become a 'lifestyle choice' ?

When contraception became available


And as for bitter career women leaving it late to have children - my dear, it is thosse very women who are paying the taxes that support the wastrels.

People with children will ALWAYS believe that they are better than those without and will always take the moral highground. I've given up being angry about it, it amuses me now. Once you have a child, you are biologically altered and chemically bonded to the child. As a result, you can no longer imagine how anybody else could NOT want to have one.

When you see these parents who thinks the sun shines out of their a**es because they've managed to procreate (Wow! That's an impressive feat!) and then you see their children with little to no education, unable to string a coherent sentence together and absolutely no job prospects, it makes me laugh.

Before you ask, yes, I do know people who genuinely believe that they are good parents when, in reality, they are just bringing up the next generation of little thugs.

Interestingly, there was a study published about 3 years ago that showed a large proportion of the population that had some form of higher education and a career (ie doctors, lawyers, businessmen)either chose not to have children at all or chose to have them later in life. And of those that did have children late, they only had one or two at most.

It provided statistics to show that the "upper educated classes" (its words not mine) were rapidly dimishing in number whilst un-educated, low-paid workers or benefit recipients were steadily increasing in number. For example, a woman who went to university might have one child at the age of 38 whilst her neighbour who left school at 16 with no qualifications might well be a grandmother at the same age.

As a result, it concluded that in the forseeable future, the country would be in a situation where the lower classes would so vastly outnumber the rest of society that the shortage of doctors/lawyers etc would lead not only to a drop in receipt of the very taxes that support those who choose not to work - but would also result in it being imperative to bring in foreign labour as Britain would not have enough skilled workers to fill jobs.


I like the idea that I am a Daily Mail reader though - that really tickled me! :rotfl:

PS Divastrop - I'm only just 30, far too lazy to be a career woman and my choice not to have children is based on many factors and arrived at through logic and reason. Am I angry towards people who are too thick to use a condom (which are available for free) and then expect the rest of society to pay for the upbringing of their mistake? You bet I am.

seaniboy

I'm with the majority here but even moreso.... ME: £450 a month in disability benefits = if you cant survive on £20,000 with a few/three kids with or without tax credits YOU ARE LIVING OUTWITH YOUR MEANS.

I get just over 25% of £20,000 being disabled and Housing Benefit/Council Tax is £4500 and whilst I have no social life I pay all my bills on time EVERYTIME, I dont complain at my minimal life (I know disability in other countries means begging) - why should others, £10,000 to keep me a disabled person in "minimal" isnt alot from government but I'm fortunate in the UK I get this at least....

divastrop

purplebutterfly wrote: »

When contraception became available


And as for bitter career women leaving it late to have children - my dear, it is thosse very women who are paying the taxes that support the wastrels.

People with children will ALWAYS believe that they are better than those without and will always take the moral highground. I've given up being angry about it, it amuses me now. Once you have a child, you are biologically altered and chemically bonded to the child. As a result, you can no longer imagine how anybody else could NOT want to have one.

When you see these parents who thinks the sun shines out of their a**es because they've managed to procreate (Wow! That's an impressive feat!) and then you see their children with little to no education, unable to string a coherent sentence together and absolutely no job prospects, it makes me laugh.

Before you ask, yes, I do know people who genuinely believe that they are good parents when, in reality, they are just bringing up the next generation of little thugs.

Interestingly, there was a study published about 3 years ago that showed a large proportion of the population that had some form of higher education and a career (ie doctors, lawyers, businessmen)either chose not to have children at all or chose to have them later in life. And of those that did have children late, they only had one or two at most.

It provided statistics to show that the "upper educated classes" (its words not mine) were rapidly dimishing in number whilst un-educated, low-paid workers or benefit recipients were steadily increasing in number. For example, a woman who went to university might have one child at the age of 38 whilst her neighbour who left school at 16 with no qualifications might well be a grandmother at the same age.

As a result, it concluded that in the forseeable future, the country would be in a situation where the lower classes would so vastly outnumber the rest of society that the shortage of doctors/lawyers etc would lead not only to a drop in receipt of the very taxes that support those who choose not to work - but would also result in it being imperative to bring in foreign labour as Britain would not have enough skilled workers to fill jobs.


I like the idea that I am a Daily Mail reader though - that really tickled me! :rotfl:

PS Divastrop - I'm only just 30, far too lazy to be a career woman and my choice not to have children is based on many factors and arrived at through logic and reason. Am I angry towards people who are too thick to use a condom (which are available for free) and then expect the rest of society to pay for the upbringing of their mistake? You bet I am.

Condoms are the thick person's choice of contraceptive. I think the 'rhythm' method was probably more reliable than those things!
You seem to think that all parents feel they are somehow superior- I would suggest that is how you perceive them.

As for quoting studies at me, don't bother, I know how easily studies can be manipulated to prove one's theory so essentially the majority of them prove nothing.

The decisions to have children with the person you love, or to go through with an unplanned pregnancy, are rarely arrived at through logic and reason. Without emotions and instincts I think the human race would become extinct.