It's STILL tough and not getting better - so how are we coping?

AnnieG

I think I'm going to have to move to get a job too, which I'm really not keen on as DS is in his last year of primary school and it seems so unfair to uproot him at this stage, but if I have to, well, I have to.
What really makes me cross about the child benefit thing is that I could be a single mum earning £44k, just over the limit, with 3 kids, and the benefit would be stopped. My next door neghbours however could be a couple each earning £42k with one child and they would still be entitled to receive it. How is that fair? And how are they going to police the famiilies where one parent works and earns over the limit but the other doesn't and the child ben is in their name? Especially if they don't share a surname? I think the first announcement should have been to tax the banks more, and those city workers who earn millions in bonuses, rather than starting with child benefit. So there!!!

maryb

I'm probably going to be in a minority here but I have never agreed with the proposition that it is not 'fair' that the middle classes get'perks' which they don't 'deserve'.

Don't forget , it is our money they are deciding to redistribute. If you want to make some people pay more tax, then fine, but don't say they don't 'deserve' anything else. The middle classes should not be treated as cash cows merely because they are earning more than average. As it is, they pay for the tax credits that allow cleaners in bank offices to take home a subsitence income thus subsidising the bank's profits which get paid out as bonuses to those who got us into this mess. And a lot of planning goes into making sure those bonuses bear as little tax as possible

The idea behind child benefit is that there IS such a thing as society, that those of us who are raising the next generation are doing socially useful work (even Ceridwen must agree that we do need some replacement of the population) and that child benefit is a way of Recognising the value of our contribution to the future by allowing us to keep a little more of our earnings (if we are taxpayers) or providing some additional help (if we are not) without making any distinction - we ARE all in this together

littleowl

I agree that it appears unfair that two people in a family earning just under £44,000 each should still receive child benefit so this is an area which needs exploring. However, would anyone want to go back to tax being assessed on household rather than individual income? I think there would be many people who would not like that idea..
As a rider I would add that an income of £44,000 seems an absolute fortune to me and I would be very happy indeed to pay a higher rate of tax to receive that.

littleowl

maryb wrote: »

I'm probably going to be in a minority here but I have never agreed with the proposition that it is not 'fair' that the middle classes get'perks' which they don't 'deserve'.

Don't forget , it is our money they are deciding to redistribute. If you want to make some people pay more tax, then fine, but don't say they don't 'deserve' anything else. The middle classes should not be treated as cash cows merely because they are earning more than average. As it is, they pay for the tax credits that allow cleaners in bank offices to take home a subsitence income thus subsidising the bank's profits which get paid out as bonuses to those who got us into this mess. And a lot of planning goes into making sure those bonuses bear as little tax as possible

The idea behind child benefit is that there IS such a thing as society, that those of us who are raising the next generation are doing socially useful work (even Ceridwen must agree that we do need some replacement of the population) and that child benefit is a way of Recognising the value of our contribution to the future by allowing us to keep a little more of our earnings (if we are taxpayers) or providing some additional help (if we are not) without making any distinction - we ARE all in this together

Not all the 'middle classes', however you define them, ever receive such a high income!

mardatha

I think it would be a far better world if the cleaners in the banks were paid a proper living decent wage by the banks they are cleaning - and not by contract firms or agencies who pocket most of the money !!

the_cat

Obviously it is not fair. Fair would be closing the loopholes that let millionaires off the hook. Fair would be to stop allowing scroungers to sully the name of those genuine claimants of benefits. I could go on, but I'd better not!

The current lot ( the other lot would have done something similar, I'm not making a political point here) have to balance the announcement of putting an upper limit on benefits claimants by bashing the higher taxpayers. They are thinking of headlines and soundbites not fairness. I find it best not to confuse politics with fairness!!!!!! Cynical, moi?

the_cat

mardatha wrote: »

I think it would be a far better world if the cleaners in the banks were paid a proper living decent wage by the banks they are cleaning - and not by contract firms or agencies who pocket most of the money !!

Based on recent perfomance, it would be far better if the cleaners were the ones RUNNING the banks!:D:D

maryb

littleowl wrote: »

Not all the 'middle classes', however you define them, ever receive such a high income!

I agree, but I was making a more general point about politicians and the media using terms such as 'perks' which are not neutral and imply that any protest is simply 'selfish'. In a lot of cases where such language is used we are looking at people earning nowhere near £40k. For example, the income ceiling for means tested loans for student children. It's pretty low, especially if you have other children still at school, and it's a struggle for a lot of families who are deemed to be too 'middle class' by this measure. But that didn't stop politicians and the media talking about 'subsidising' the middle classes' children (who by implication were undeserving)

ceridwen

flowertotmum wrote: »

Hi all...i agree its very worrying for us all...i must have been sheltered from it all before hubby was made redundant..now i'm in total shock and i really don't want to watch the news any more..is it true that there is going to be a cap on how many benefits one family can have...if we have to move to get jobs then thats really going to !!!!!! us up..with fern at school and samuel at college..i am worried...hubby reckons it won't come to that but what if it does....
take care all

Yes - it is the case that there will be a "cap" on household benefit income - it will be set at national average salary = currently £26,000 pa gross. The idea being that no-one should be paid more than a national average salary level to be unemployed.

Rummer

I think £26000 in benefits is a huge amount of money!