Child Benefit fiasco: cuts 'unravelling' already...

sss555s

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Don't forget:

c/ Dyed in the wool Tories who think that there is no such thing as society except when it's handy for them personally to benefit financially from the system

and

d/ Gullible Libdems who are beginning to realise the price to be paid for Clegg's and Cable's, unearned and meaningless ministerial letterheads.

I'm guessing you are either a or b then?

Alan_Cross

sss555s wrote: »

I'm guessing you are either a or b then?

I'm e - someone who knows that if it looks like a crap government, acts like a crap government and puts up the kind of apologies you'd expect from a crap government...

... it's probably a crap government...

carolt

lemonjelly wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thing, but for goodness sakes this thread is as ridiculous as some of the moaning from the high earners who will be affected by this (as highlighted by dopesters post after 4-5 posts).

!!!!!!, if you earn circa £50k a year, you really are not going to miss the miniscule amount of money proportionately that you get from child benefit. I work with a lot of parents who earn less - recently a parent earning £35k a year didn't know if they were getting child benefit or not.

Proportionately it is a miniscule amount of cash.

Other benefits will be significantly cut, seriously harming the poor, the disabled, and other such groups, & the tories will argue that they have "shared around the pain".

This is a tokenism attempt to argue in the future that everyone is affected.

Problem is, that not everyone is affected in the same way, & we all know who will be hit hardest.

FWIW I have little time for some of those rolled out in front of the cameras to say on the news they think it is a little tough - though it does highlight really well the 2 faced nature of people being for cuts until it affects them.

'Proportionately it is a miniscule amount of cash'.

But is it? What do you call 'miniscule'?

For example, someone on a salary of 44K per annum - the minimum cut-off point - would receive take-home pay of £32,270.40 per annum or £2,689.20 per month.

If they had 2 kids, they would lose around £2500 per annum in Child Benefit - do you really think that a family losing c 10% of their monthly income at that level would just not notice? It's just not realistic.

That is a lot of money.

You can argue till the cows come home about whether or not Child Benefit should exist at all - but you're going to have to try harder to convince me that a grounds for removing it entirely with an arbitrary cut-off point of 44K is 'fair' because people at that level won't 'miss it'.

SingleSue

carolt wrote: »

You're conflating being on benefits and being a single parent - the two are not the same.

I was referring to those on benefits NOT single parents (who in fact will be one of the groups hardest hit by the changes to child benefit).

Those couples on benefits or low incomes have no extra childcare costs over those where one works on a higher income.

As to things like school meals and prescriptions - not miniscule at all. We pay a lot on precriptions (asthma/excema), plus the cost of school meals for all 3 is certainly not inconsiderable. OH just had a £500 dental bill. Certainly not just pennies.

Many men have to have smart suits for work - maybe for women smart clothing needn't be that different in costs or nature to work clothing; for most men, it is - don't think most men feel the need to hang around in suits if not at work - jeans are a lot cheaper.

I have asthma, I receive free prescriptions but I rarely get my puffers (I got into the habit of using youngest's ones when we were both working but at that point, not well off), the asthma nurse is forever telling me off for it. For my Excema, I have found tea tree oil and vaseline wonderful items and a lot cheaper than prescriptions.

Dental - I have a plate with two false teeth on it (childhood accident), to replace it would cost a lot of money...money I couldn't afford whilst working and money I certainly can't afford now (I would still have to pay for it). I need a replacement as part of it fell off 8 years ago but as it is not completely broken and it still serves its purpose (as in no gap toothed grin like a 7 year old), I make do.

I was actually talking generically, a couple on benefits, a single parent on benefits, a single working parent (apart from the opposite working partner - I have seen so many assume that if both in the couple are working, that there will be child care costs, it is possible without) or a couple working with children, be it low or high paid.

I have been part of all of the above (apart from both of us out of work), I have been a single no children worker, a couple no children worker, a stay at home mum whilst partner worked, a couple with children both working worker (high and low paid) and a single parent with children not working (albeit with care duties so maybe slightly differnt to the normal single parent) and through my experiences, I have learnt to make do, something that even when we could afford to do things (like the dental plate), I made do instead as it wasn't completely broken.

Work clothes were sourced from cheaper ends of the market and looked after, bargains were sought (ex hubby also worked in an office and had to wear a suit and tie to work everyday), deals were made...it was a case of having to at times as money was short.

In 1989 I couldn't see the sense in paying £50 for a blouse that looked exactly like one I had picked up from the market for a fiver...and because I looked after it, my £5 blouse lasted longer than the £50 one. In 2010, I am still the same.

I think I made my feelings well known re free school dinners in the "What would you do if you had 300 million" thread, I find it grossly unfair that you can be just a few pence over the upper limit and then left to be worse off than someone not working...if anything, there should be a phased removal of free school meals so that those just over the limit do not end up worse off.

MissMoneypenny

carolt wrote: »

As pointed out, dopester's thread is somewhat unrepresentative - try the thread with 900 posts here:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1054518-So-child-benefit-to-go-for-higher-rate-taxpayers/AllOnOnePage

rather than dopester's one with a mere 80 posts for more of a flavour of mumsnet's opinion.

Re the mse view, it was pointed out last night on the Nice People thread, that the subject had been debaed on the Marriages board where opinion was much closer to my view - probably because, as Gene Hunt astutely observed, women's views are very different to men's on this issue - probably because it is largely women who currently receive Child Benefit.

The parents doing the complaining are the ones who will be losing the money. Just like the SMI thead: those that are/might be affected, are the ones who didn't want the cuts.

It's the same on all the welfare cuts threads. Those affected by the cuts, don't want the cuts, while everyone else thinks there should be cuts in that benefit.

Most mothers these days do some sort of work. Times have changed for the better for women. It isn't like years ago when CB was the only money the "little woman at home" had and the money was paid to the mother to stop the father boozing it away down the pub.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

'Proportionately it is a miniscule amount of cash'.

But is it? What do you call 'miniscule'?

For example, someone on a salary of 44K per annum - the minimum cut-off point - would receive take-home pay of £32,270.40 per annum or £2,689.20 per month.

If they had 2 kids, they would lose around £2500 per annum in Child Benefit - do you really think that a family losing c 10% of their monthly income at that level would just not notice? It's just not realistic.

£20+£13 X4 =£132 = 4.9% of take home pay per month.

FTBFun

Has anyone thought of the children's views?

http://newsarse.com/2010/10/05/hang-on-we-get-benefits-ask-nations-children/

Hauptmann

Really2 wrote: »

We deal with schools and talk to teachers daily
How else could we deal with them and know when they work?:)

I am not saying some teachers don't work over, but the vast majority are not in before 8:30am and nearly all are out before 4pm.

I don't know what 'deal with teachers' means? You might be in a call centre selling educational software , for example.

I am no apologist for teachers but you have to give credit where its due. My sister is not very good with IT, so occassionally I call by the school to help her out with loading software onto the PC's in her class (they don't seem to have any IT support). All I can say is that in the school where she works ALL the teachers seem to be there at 4.30 - I would say most seem to leave around 5pm.

All of my three children went to private school. However I do know that the local state high school has registration at 8.25am - so I guess the teachers must be there at that time.

I still maintain that its a tough job for not very good pay and not a job I would/could do, not even for 50% more than they currently earn. And I suspect that a lot of people who make noises about the holidays and pension etc., would not last long in a classroom.

My brother in law is an incredibly clever bloke (an engineer with a PhD, written books etc) and works as a university lecturer. His pay is very poor for his level of ability and many of his colleagues are from the third world (India and China) because they find it difficult to recruit UK people of the required level of expertise at the salaries on offer.

Really2

Hauptmann wrote: »

I don't know what 'deal with teachers' means? You might be in a call centre selling educational software , for example.

I wont give you the ins and outs of what I do but we are in contact with around 4000 teachers per year some daily.
I am not saying teaching is easy, but I will stick by that not many are there 8am-6pm, indeed not many are there after 4pm. Many do work from home after those periods, but that is beside the point on child care.

It is not contractual to do 8am-6PM for teachers, they can do it if they want, but then could they not use after school clubs?

MissMoneypenny

Really2 wrote: »

I am not saying teaching is easy, but I will stick by that not many are there 8am-6pm, indeed not many are there after 4pm. Many do work from home after those periods, but that is beside the point on child care.

When I went to collect my children from school, the parents learnt never to stand by the staff room door or else you got crushed in the stampede at 3.30.