Tax credits dropped from £500+ to £42 - help!

anguk

melly1980 wrote: »

But its ok for those lower down to be topped up so that they have more disposable income than her?

But is it okay for someone on a high income to have that topped up just because they've got less disposable income?

The higher earner could have only a small disposable income because they've got a big expensive house, 2 gas guzzling cars with expensive insurance, the dearest sky TV package, paying off credit card debts because they've splashed out in the past etc.

Having a low disposable income could be down to choice (big expensive house) or bad money management, why should they be more entitled to tax credits than someone who has been careful with their money and live a more frugal life?

kelloggs36

Tobysmummy, you say that your hubby got another job and is now earning good money - did you not realise that this would drastically reduce your money this year? I just find it difficult to believe that you were not expecting a big drop in the new financial year? You would have had from the time your hubby started the new job, until now to try and cut some costs somewhere; the amount you were getting with the income you had was huge when normally you would have only been entitled to the basic family element of £545 per YEAR. We only got a very small amount of tax credits, but I knew that we would lose it this year - last year! So, I have not counted it in my budgets this year.

OP - the % you get for childcare has dropped to 70% instead of 80% so the higher the childcare, the higher the loss. The rest is due to the higher rate at which they claw back the money they initially say you would get - meaning many families lose a big chunk.

CFC

tobysmummy wrote: »

We don't "keep up with the jones'" far from it in fact, but our childcare and mortgage are very expensive and I have to put fuel in the car as it's an essential part of my job (I have to travel alot)

Everybodys income/expenditure is different, and nobody should judge simply because our household income is more than others. Surely it's entirley possible that our essential living expenses are more than other peoples? We pay nearly £900 a month in childcare alone - that's more than another mortage - so please reserve your judgment before you know all of the facts.

offended I'm not, I realise that on the face of it it appears that we should be able to comfortably afford a lot of things, but the truth is we can't and it's not because we splash out on things we can't afford.

But having read alot of other posts on this forum, I understand that alot of people come under attack when not all of the facts are known, perhaps if I gave a detailed breakdown of everything we HAVE to pay out (which I'm not going to do), people may be more understanding, but then again maybe not.

It's very narrow minded to believe that just because some people can live comfortably on a smaller income, those on a larger one should be able to also. It's not what you bring in, it's what you have to pay out that makes the difference - and it's not about being lavish or excessive, it's about what you MUST pay in order to work.

I'm not after anyones pity or scrutiny here, perhaps my use of "on the breadline" was offensive to others who are income-wise worse off than us, but who can judge that until you see what's leftover once all of the bills have been paid?

I'm didn't read on after your post and won't read anymore because people's belief that with our income we couldn't possibly be struggling is quite offensive to me, and makes me feel as though I've done something wrong. Just trying to remind myself to reserve my own judgment when I read future posts and form an opinion when I don't know all of the facts...

If it's offensive to you, tough. If you are so poor you feel that you are on the breadline, cut down the £900 a month childcare costs by giving up work to reduce the expenses.

Years ago, there was no CTC and people understood that if they wanted children they would have to make financial choices and sacrifices. Now I am afraid there is the 'ME' generation who thinks that their right to have children at someone else's expense is sacrosanct, so that they can continue their expensive lifestyle.

Again, if your employer requires you to travel but doesn't contribute to your car or your petrol, then please stop expecting me as a taxpayer to subsidise that uneconomic job through my taxes via your CTC!

I can see you really don't 'get it' but perhaps you should start thinking about it. Otherwise one day all of these children are going to grow up in a financial system even more bankrupt and chaotic than now.

My friend has recently gone back to work after having a child, and quite honestly there has been no reduction in their standard of living, even after she pays for childcare 4 days a week. She knows she will have a reduction soon - perhaps she'll have to cut down on her spending; that WOULD make a change.

Blackpool_Saver

elisamoose wrote: »

My generation brought up our kids with no tax credits just child benefit and no free nursery places either. And I am not talking about pre war , but children born in late 1980's early 1990's. You had to manage on what you earned.No safety net apart from your own savings.

Um, what about family income supplement, have you forgotten about that?

dktreesea

neil277 wrote: »

I had no education left school poor wages, i went to college for 5 years to better myself, Thats what you have to do.

Fair enough, but put it this way, McDonalds and other minimum wage places like it are full of well educated young people who can't get jobs in the fields they are qualified for. Having an education guarantees nothing. Certainly not a decent income.

dktreesea

neil277 wrote: »

Stop all benefits once and for all

Have you ever lived in a place which doesn't have a welfare state? How about you try that before recommending slashing all benefits.

You think your work is guaranteed for however long you want it? Mmm, I hope so.

dktreesea

melly1980 wrote: »

although that is a nice little story you have wasted your time because I never suggested that they should be paid gash. I merely pointed out the simple fact that paying these people more money would not save the tax payer by reducing the amount spent on tax credits. The reason is that their wages come from the public purse anyway, so nothing would be saved.

Yes, and when it comes to the public sector workers, fair enough. But there are plenty of people in the private sector who do not earn a living wage. Their employment is subsidised by other taxpayers via the benefits/tax credit system.

melly1980

anguk wrote: »

But is it okay for someone on a high income to have that topped up just because they've got less disposable income?

The higher earner could have only a small disposable income because they've got a big expensive house, 2 gas guzzling cars with expensive insurance, the dearest sky TV package, paying off credit card debts because they've splashed out in the past etc.

Having a low disposable income could be down to choice (big expensive house) or bad money management, why should they be more entitled to tax credits than someone who has been careful with their money and live a more frugal life?

It is fundamentally wrong to make someone better off through benefits that people who are not entightled to them. It is batsh1t crazy but it happens.

I have in laws on tax credits and can make good comparisons because I know the full details rather than half stories. 4 kids like us, live in the same street as us, their money is topped up to within a couple of hundred quid of us despite me earning 10K more. In their house you have, 3 cars on the drive, they own their own home, a PS3 downstairs, a PS3 upstairs, a desktop computer downstairs plus a laptop (free of charge because they are impoverished) upstairs, a 52" plasma on the wall, a full Sky package, the best broadband, Iphones / Blackberrys each and 2 holidays a year. They aint even screwing the system.

It seems that you dont want the excessive lifestyles of the 40K+ earners to be subsidised by the tax system but are more than happy for the lower earners to get a leg up to the same level.

Miranda7

rogerblack wrote: »

Not addressing the other issues.

On some basic assumptions, I get that you're getting ~19MPG on your car. (Assuming 50MPH*3h - it could be worse if a lot of that is in city)

Needless to say there are much cheaper cars, some of which would only need to work for a month to pay themselves back!

You misunderstand me! I'm talking a total weekly spend on fuel of £50, including two 60-mile trips to collect my husband and drop him off to work. We get up to 60mpg, but I am doing 420 miles just for work and living in a village, quite a few miles just to get shopping/take the tot swimming etc. It adds up to about 500 miles a week for that £50.

I'm looking for a Vauxhall Astra Eco car, which would save me on tax, but these are like hen's teeth on my budget - I've already pulled my fuel consumption back as far as possible given what I have to spend on a car.

I'd love to get a better car, but a dismal credit rating wouldn't allow me to!

Miranda7

Oh, and you lot - will you please stop clogging up this thread bickering about "benefits"? Go to the Daily Mail website and rant away. This is about people getting advice, not your opinion of the system in general!