Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

A few ways for single earning parents to fight the child beneift cull................

Just stumbled across this thought it might be of interest to a few people ;)

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/13102010/389/fight-against-child-benefit-cuts.html

Discuss away :)
"You can measure a man's character by the choices he makes under pressure"
Sir Winston Churchill
«1

Comments

  • silvercar
    silvercar Posts: 48,708 Ambassador
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Academoney Grad Name Dropper
    Loads of other ideas around.

    Do a pay sacrifice to increase holiday entitlement.

    Transferring any savings to lower earners name to avoid the interest on savings pushing you into higher bracket.

    Moving to an offset mortgage so that any savings go to reduce your mortgage rather than earn interest.

    Seems that these are only tweaks, worth doing if you are in danger of crossing the line, but if you are well past the line there is little you can do.
    I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages, student & coronavirus Boards, money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.
  • bendix
    bendix Posts: 5,499 Forumite
    Or, alternatively, recognise that as a family with a top-rate taxpayer in it, you are more than capable of adjusting your spending to address the massive £20 per week shortfall, particularly when it is for the interests of your children, whilst, at the same time, developing some personal pride about taking money from the state to raise your children.

    Just a thought.
  • bendix wrote: »
    Or, alternatively, recognise that as a family with a top-rate taxpayer in it, you are more than capable of adjusting your spending to address the massive £20 per week shortfall, particularly when it is for the interests of your children, whilst, at the same time, developing some personal pride about taking money from the state to raise your children.

    Just a thought.

    To a certain extent I fully agree with you, however I still think that for families where 1 parent works and earn say 45k a year the proposed cut is well quite frankly really unfair, your next door neighbour may have both parents working earning 40k each so a total of 80k yet they get to keep the extra 20 quid a week not on really.................

    Also when you take into consideration the copious of amounts of tax someone on 45k a year pays why should they not try and claw back as much as they can, for people who are earning 45k a year I suspect this whole thing will boil down to the plain old principle rather than the 20 quid a week ;)
    "You can measure a man's character by the choices he makes under pressure"
    Sir Winston Churchill
  • silvercar
    silvercar Posts: 48,708 Ambassador
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Academoney Grad Name Dropper
    Its £20 a week if you have only one child. If you have 2 its £37, 3 its £54.
    I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages, student & coronavirus Boards, money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.
  • Poppycat
    Poppycat Posts: 19,913 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 15 October 2010 pm31 4:27PM
    Agreed by why do they allow two high paying tax payers to still get it
    bendix wrote: »
    Or, alternatively, recognise that as a family with a top-rate taxpayer in it, you are more than capable of adjusting your spending to address the massive £20 per week shortfall, particularly when it is for the interests of your children, whilst, at the same time, developing some personal pride about taking money from the state to raise your children.

    Just a thought.
  • bootman
    bootman Posts: 1,985 Forumite
    I've been Money Tipped!
    I hate the low earners having a go at what they see as high earners. You probably get a fat load of credits in some shape or form, we get bu**er all. 2 earners on £25k each pay £4k less tax in total than 1 person earning the same amount £50k. So how is that fair?

    I think they should target the 2 earners not the single one, they are the loaded ones in my eyes!
  • bendix wrote: »
    Or, alternatively, recognise that as a family with a top-rate taxpayer in it, you are more than capable of adjusting your spending to address the massive £20 per week shortfall, particularly when it is for the interests of your children, whilst, at the same time, developing some personal pride about taking money from the state to raise your children.

    Just a thought.

    Personally I disagree. This kind of re-arranging of finances is exactly what higer earners do to avoid as much tax as possible. I don't be-grudge Philip Green avoiding £200m odd of tax any more than I would someone on £46k making additional pension contributions to be able to keep their child benefit. Good for them.

    Play by the rules, but get every penny you can within those rules. It is up to the government to change them if needs be.

    Of course if there is no such option then just suck it up and move on. Tough.
  • drc
    drc Posts: 2,057 Forumite
    Child benefit being cut for "middle class" single salary earners on £45k per year to "save money" but Clegg has just announced a £7 billion spend on providing 2 year olds from "poor" families with 15 hours of education per week. I think Clegg needs to go back to school to swot up on his maths.
  • olly300
    olly300 Posts: 14,737 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    drc wrote: »
    Child benefit being cut for "middle class" single salary earners on £45k per year to "save money" but Clegg has just announced a £7 billion spend on providing 2 year olds from "poor" families with 15 hours of education per week. I think Clegg needs to go back to school to swot up on his maths.

    Calm before the storm.
    I'm not cynical I'm realistic :p

    (If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)
  • Jacey53
    Jacey53 Posts: 292 Forumite
    Home Insurance Hacker! Cashback Cashier
    drc wrote: »
    Child benefit being cut for "middle class" single salary earners on £45k per year to "save money" but Clegg has just announced a £7 billion spend on providing 2 year olds from "poor" families with 15 hours of education per week. I think Clegg needs to go back to school to swot up on his maths.


    This is a much better use of money than giving tax cuts to Cameron's cronies.

    If we can bring potential under-achievers into education early then it reduces many problems way down the line.

    It will be of benefit to employers in later years as school leavers will be less likely to be illiterate, it will positively influence the children of some of the disenfranchised (lowlifes), it will reduce crime later on as so many of those who turn to crime are under-educated, and many of those who have "anger issues" are unable to express themselves in a non-violent manner.


    Please don't think I am saying that all poor children would come into these categories even if they don't have additional money spent on them.
    Sealed Pot challenge 2011 member 1051 - aiming for £365
    Frugal living challenge 2011 £4044 or less!
    Make £11,000 in 2011 £0/£11,000
    Planning a hand-made Christmas 2011
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 241K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.