Child Benefit axed for higher income families

gonzo127

close to canterbury in kent

SusanC_2

doctorseuss wrote: »

Yes, circa £200 a week for a family of three, in London (west London, anyway, maybe I should just move). I'm in awe of your ability to multiply by 52

No need to be sarcastic. I was rather incredulous at someone claiming it would be a struggle to manage on such an amount when the things listed were already paid for so thought I should check whether I had understood correctly what you were saying. But since a simple question to clarify and confirm what you were saying resulted in such a response, I won't attempt to discuss it any further with you.

mountainofdebt

Although its a good idea its bonkers that a household can have one person earning £45K and losing the benefit and another can have two people earning £88K yet still keep it.

What it going to happen is that alot of people are going to be looking at legitimate ways of reducing their income - so for example people who have their own businesses will reuce their take home salary to below this level but make the difference up in dividends.

Also I'm wondering why the wait until 2013 ? If its such a brillant, easy to implement idea why not introduce it in 2012?

doctorseuss

gonzo127 wrote: »

close to canterbury in kent

Right then, we're moving there tomorrow

Seriously, I don't think these brackets, limits and averages make much sense in London.

skintchick

gonzo127 wrote: »

it might be, but 44k a year is a lot of money no matter what anyone wants to beleive as its around 50% more than my family live of,

yes everyones situation is different but if someone can not live off 44k a year then they must have overstreached themselves at some point, if thats getting a big mortgage or other debts it is still overstreatching

You forget, or choose to ignore, that some people will have chosen their house and as a result their monthly mortgage payments while childless, perhaps not intending to have any, and now, in a difficult market, find themselves with only one earner, struggling to pay said mortgage, and unable to sell in the aforementioned difficult market.

It is perfectly possible to struggle on any income if said income alters unexpectedly while one's outgoings do not.

Also, most people don't judge what amount qualifies as 'a lot of money' by comparing it to 'how much that gonzo127 off MSE earns', so it's irrelevant that 44k is around 50 per cent more than your earnings.

doctorseuss

SusanC wrote: »

No need to be sarcastic. I was rather incredulous at someone claiming it would be a struggle to manage on such an amount when the things listed were already paid for so thought I should check whether I had understood correctly what you were saying. But since a simple question to clarify and confirm what you were saying resulted in such a response, I won't attempt to discuss it any further with you.

Sorry, it's been a long day but your post looked to me to be along the lines of -

"I spend £30 a day" - "What, you spend £109500 a decade?!"

Maybe the sudden removal of my well earned CB (:rotfl:) has clouded my judgement.

gonzo127

skintchick wrote: »

You forget, or choose to ignore, that some people will have chosen their house and as a result their monthly mortgage payments while childless, perhaps not intending to have any, and now, in a difficult market, find themselves with only one earner, struggling to pay said mortgage, and unable to sell in the aforementioned difficult market.

It is perfectly possible to struggle on any income if said income alters unexpectedly while one's outgoings do not.

Also, most people don't judge what amount qualifies as 'a lot of money' by comparing it to 'how much that gonzo127 off MSE earns', so it's irrelevant that 44k is around 50 per cent more than your earnings.

i am using myself as a example of how little people can live off and why i beleive that someone who is on 45k a year (over 2600 a month) really should not be in a situation where the loss of ~£100 a month is so bad it completly destroys their life

and whilst i understand that people could find it hard to live of that amount if they are used to much more especially if their income changes suddenly i still struggle to accept that the £100 a month would make that big of a difference to their lives,

of course some people will be hurt by this because they have overstreached themselves (and havent we all - hence why most of us are on this site in the first place) but you can cope it just takes some sacrifices

skintchick

gonzo127 wrote: »

i am using myself as a example of how little people can live off and why i beleive that someone who is on 45k a year (over 2600 a month) really should not be in a situation where the loss of ~£100 a month is so bad it completly destroys their life

and whilst i understand that people could find it hard to live of that amount if they are used to much more especially if their income changes suddenly i still struggle to accept that the £100 a month would make that big of a difference to their lives,

of course some people will be hurt by this because they have overstreached themselves (and havent we all - hence why most of us are on this site in the first place) but you can cope just takes some sacrifices

Well, that rather depends. My own situation is that my OH works and I am a SAHM to a 14 month old. We earn just under 44k (well, OH does) and while we are living OK, and in fact save our CB, if we lost any of his income then even £100 WOULD make a difference and we WOULD struggle, because things are very tight right now. If we didn't save the CB but instead spent it then losing it owuld be a problem. We chose to save it because we felt that it might be cut at some point and we didn't want to reply on it, plus we wanted to save it for DD.

I too have lived on almost nothing in the past, but being almost starving myself is OK, starving my DD is not. Likewise living in freezing cold, or not having any new clothes or shoes for years. Children grow out of things and need new stuff.

I can easily see how losing the CB would make a difference for people.

fantafan

Well we're in the earning bracket to lose out. A bit miffed. We're not middle class. We don't have a degree between us but have worked all our lives since 16 to be where we are today. Aged 34 and 39, planned our first kid so we were in the nicest house, most stable environment we could be and now after paying a fortune in taxes over 18 & 23 years respectively, won't even get a penny when bubba is less than 2. I was planning to reduce my hours to become one of those people who enjoys time off with their children and with that would have still been only eligible for the £20 a week extra and not qualifying for WFTC.

I don't have a lavish lifestyle. I don't have a flash car as I'm still paying for it (bought second hand). Don't buy designer clothes. I don't even drink (even before baby on the way). I have no savings. Just because you earn decent money doesn't automatically mean you have loads more disposable cash. Besides by the time tax has come off it, and at the extra being 40%, it doesn't mean you earn over double a £20k earner would. My only luxury is doing our house up bit by bit...I don't even have carpet on the stairs yet because we're doing it up ourselves when we have the money!

Just makes you cynical that the policies of the government were supposed to be pro-marriage and family. Being married and a baby on the means I'll be more financially worse off. The only saving grace is that my mortgage is a lower percentage from the recession that I have been paying the same amount towards it.

Grumble over. £1055 to find a year from 2013! Ps. I am not the £40k earner, DH is but I hardly ever see him he works that hard and long hours to secure that money. Hourly rate is probably less than minimum wage!

LindseyandMatthew

I totally disagree that a couple earning 80k between them should still be entitled when a family with one wage earner of 44k loses out. It really should go on household income.

To the person who 'only' has £200 a week to feed, clothe and entertain......we have to do that on £62.50 for a family of 4 so sorry but no sympathy there at all