MSE Parents Club Part 14

tiamai_d

Why have they not gone by 'household earnings'? So basically, you are being penalised for being a single earner household?

Luckily DH doesn't make that.

The council tax thing will be interesting. We have stayed in this tiny 2 bedroom house and not moved because we are in the lowest couincil tax band. So what may happen? Our council tax will go up. Even though each time we have thought aboput moving we have looked into the outgoings for teh new place and decided no because the council tax has been too high?

Really not encouraging people into work are they? We have always said we would be far better off with DH not working and living in a nice 3 bedroom council house.

And as for tax credits, if they did go we'd be screwed. DS2 is at school but I can't guarantee that he won't be off for a week next week. Also how am I supposed to go do a days work when most nights I've had very little sleep because of Chris?

Same with the family fund. They have changed it so that they take into account tax credits. So we are no long eligable for help. Which is so silly, anyone with a disabled child who is eleigable to apply, is getting middle rate personal care DLA which puts your tax credits up. So many of us who have a working parter are now unable to claim.

/rant over

My_Fathers_Daughter

MacSmiler - 'discourage' I understand - it was 'penalise' that I was struggling with

Also only half paying attention whilst working on an incredibly tedious database!!!

tarajayne

Did any of you order the Fireman Sam Firestation from Next?

redstararnie76

jillie1974 wrote: »

how a single parent who earns £44k loses it and a couple who earn £86k get to keep it is beyond me.

That's exactly my problem with it - how can that be right?!??

SusanC_2

weezl74 wrote: »

do you mind me asking why you don't agree with it?

Ignore me if too controversial, I know money and stuff can be a bit of a taboo! I am genuinely interested though.

I disagree with the welfare state. I don't believe that charity is a function of the state. State enforced charity (which is essentially what the welfare state is) discourages philanthropy and removes morality from the act of provision for those who are in need.

e.g. We are both out together and I lose my packed lunch and there is nowhere I can buy more food from. You choose to share you lunch with me and that is a moral act. If someone else takes half of your lunch and gives it to me or obliges you by force to give half of your lunch to me it is not a moral act.

When charity is run by the state it is open to much more abuse. If giving is done on an individual level or through charities, it is much harder for people to cheat the system and you as an individual have control over where your money goes instead of being forced to hand it over to people who are scamming. (Obviously not all people claiming benefits are being lazy or cheating the system but there are many who do.)

Also benefits create an entitlement culture where people think the government "should" be giving them money even though they don't need it. If you do actually need benefits and are just automatically given them by the "system" then you are likely to feel you are receiving what you are entitled to and not feel grateful that you have received something you did not earn. On the other hand if you are given the money or things you need by other people or charities who have seen your need there is a good chance you will appreciate it (and when you are in a better position you are more likely to choose to give to others).

tiamai_d

Just one other small thing.

Is it not better to encourage SAHM's (if they are happy to be SAHM ad also SAHD cos I aint sexists) since there is a lack of jobs? Every SAHM who is forced into work by these measuers is then taking a job that could be going to someone on jobseekrs.

Or does my argument not hold any weight at all?

bexta

I think any issue where money and benefits are concerned is going to cause huge uproar. Personally, OH and I don't earn enough to be affected, but I can see that the decision makes no real sense, and it hasn't been applied in a very logical way at all. I think something needs to be done to reform the system though, as there are communities with generations of people who have never worked, and with the current system, there is very little incentive to do so. It does upset me though that there are people who obviously rort the system, and swank about town with designer gear, smoking and drinking. However, I do believe that help should be available to those who genuinely need it. CB is the only government assistance we get, as I have some savings which disqualify us for everything.

My_Fathers_Daughter

tiamai_d wrote: »

Just one other small thing.

Is it not better to encourage SAHM's (if they are happy to be SAHM ad also SAHD cos I aint sexists) since there is a lack of jobs? Every SAHM who is forced into work by these measuers is then taking a job that could be going to someone on jobseekrs.

Or does my argument not hold any weight at all?

TBH I don't think that £80pm is going to be influential in a decision as to whether one parent can stay at home at this level of earning...if you are earning more than £44k you are taking home a level of income where £80pm is a welcome addition but is not going to change the world.

So whilst I can see that there may be an argument for people wanting to stay below the tax threshold I am not sure that ultimately CB or no CB is going to influence that decision.

Am I making any sense?

What I am saying is that whilst losing CB may seem unfair to those who have a single high earner, it will not mean that any of the stay at home parents are rushing off to find work.

I may be wrong though.




Interesting argument Susan - much more developed than 'I don't think people should get handouts just for popping out sprogs' :P (which is much more like what I would say!)

tiamai_d

Anyway, I still feel like crap. My head hurts in a strange way, it's like a spiderweb of owchyness. My baby girl is giving me cuddles though.

Yesterday though, she belted me in the eye with a full cup of juice. I was blinded for a good few minutes! Evil child. Lovely child

tiamai_d

My_Fathers_Daughter wrote: »

TBH I don't think that £80pm is going to be influential in a decision as to whether one parent can stay at home at this level of earning...if you are earning more than £44k you are taking home a level of income where £80pm is a welcome addition but is not going to change the world.

So whilst I can see that there may be an argument for people wanting to stay below the tax threshold I am not sure that ultimately CB or no CB is going to influence that decision.

Am I making any sense?

What I am saying is that whilst losing CB may seem unfair to those who have a single high earner, it will not mean that any of the stay at home parents are rushing off to find work.

I may be wrong though.

I was thinking in a very generalised sence.

Damn you woman for spurning my over reaction! :rotfl: