Pregnant with 1st baby. Do we get anything? what about the £190 grant?

pipscot

melly1980 wrote: »

hi

as you well know I get a small amount. However come 2013 when it "goes west" I will be less than amused if people who earn lower suddenly get a leg up above me. It would be a system of epic stupidity if that is how it was to work. As it stands this would happen but much depends on precisely how they change the tax credits system.

The CB proposals are very poor. By all means remove them from high earners such as myself but there is no excuse for not doing it in a taperd fashion or on a combined income basis which wold be more fair.

I actually agree with you on this one!:):):) (I do really!).
I don't think anyone earning less than you (with 4 children/1 income) will end up with more money than you but if the end result of taking on the extra responsibilies of a £40K job is going to be practically the same as earning £25K then I totally understand your viewpoint!

melly1980

pipscot wrote: »

I actually agree with you on this one!:):):) (I do really!).
I don't think anyone earning less than you (with 4 children/1 income) will end up with more money than you but if the end result of taking on the extra responsibilies of a £40K job is going to be practically the same as earning £25K then I totally understand your viewpoint!

As it stands If I were to lose all my stuff, but the tax credits lower down remained the same then that would happen. It all depends on how much they affect the tax credits entightlement to those lower down the payscale.

DeeMarie89

melly1980 wrote: »

Try reading it again. Both are families of 6 (ie 4 kids and 2 adults)
My apologies, I misread it


Because you dont have the faintest idea of the reality of the situation. I can use this example because I have a real life example of it.

If my family (of 6) has 40K of income why should we only have 100 - 200 pound per month more than a family that earns over 10 thousand pounds less and also has a family of 6. That is the reality here. People with much much less money are being made as well off.

And I'm not saying it's right that said family are almost as well off, but you can't claim benefits from a system that pays money to you, who earn £40k, but then condemn it for giving money to those who genuinely couldn't survive without it.

DeeMarie89

melly1980 wrote: »

Not so.

For every 1000 pounds you increased your wages by you would lose 330 of it to tax and NI and 410 of it from your tax credits that you do get.

Your 1000 per year pay rise in reality to you would be worth ~£260 per year. So you would have to get yourself a 10 grand pay rise just to be ~200 per month better off than a family in the same circumstances who didnt get the pay rise.

This would continue until your tax credits had been tapered away. S

So you're saying, if my wage before tax was £40k (ignoring any tax credits) after tax I would only have an income of less than £18k?

zagfles

Ayelet wrote: »

I don't get why high earners even get child benefit. I am on NMW paying tax over this and barely afford a holiday each year, yet my tax money could go to them in the name of child benefit.

Just doesn't seem fair.

(seems this thread is destined for DT so I may as well get in on the act )

Or the other way of looking at it is that their taxes pay their own child benefit plus your tax credits if you have kids.

Or if you don't have kids then in a generations' time the OPs baby will be paying your state pension.

Most countries give additional tax allowances for extra family members to reflect the obvious fact that your ability to pay reduces as the mouths you've got to feed increases. The UK doesn't. Using tax credits rather than allowances is hugely beneficial to low income families at the expense of higher income families.

melly1980

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

And I'm not saying it's right that said family are almost as well off, but you can't claim benefits from a system that pays money to you, who earn £40k, but then condemn it for giving money to those who genuinely couldn't survive without it.

I think your misunderstanding me. I dont condem the concept of tax credits, topping peoples wages up or assisting in childcare payments.

I just think the structure of the system has to be wrong if you have to earn 10K more just to be 200 quid a month better off. Think about it, on like for like circumstances a family that has a total of 20K income would only be 400 quid a month worse off than mine even though I earn twice as much. Its staggering and I dont think that people really just know how much of a boost tax credits give.

melly1980

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

So you're saying, if my wage before tax was £40k (ignoring any tax credits) after tax I would only have an income of less than £18k?

no, thats not the way it works. I will try to explain and after doing so Zagfles can correct me :rotfl:

If you imagine a situation with 2 families with 4 kids (I use this as it is my situation)

One family has combined earnings of 30K the other 40K. (no childcare to keep it simple, straight tax credits).

The familiy having to cope on 30K will perceive the 40K family to be a fair bit richer, but when you look at it the following happens.

The 40K family earns 10K more. However if they earned 30K instead they would get all of the 41p per pound of tax credits that had been tapered away (or £4100 per year ish) plus they will pay £3300 less in tax / NI. So in reality despite making a transition from 40K to 30K they will only be £2600 worse off for a £10000 drop. Likewise, if the family on 30K got a 10K payrise this would only leave them a bit better off because they would lose that level of tax credits plus have to pay 33% Tax / Ni on that 10K rise. People on lower wages dont realise this but families with 3 or more kids are barely any better off on 40K than they are on 30K yet every tom **** and Harry bthinks 40K earners should have everything taken off them.

zagfles

melly1980 wrote: »

no, thats not the way it works. I will try to explain and after doing so Zagfles can correct me :rotfl:

If you insist...

If you imagine a situation with 2 families with 4 kids (I use this as it is my situation)

One family has combined earnings of 30K the other 40K. (no childcare to keep it simple, straight tax credits).

The familiy having to cope on 30K will perceive the 40K family to be a fair bit richer, but when you look at it the following happens.

The 40K family earns 10K more. However if they earned 30K instead they would get all of the 41p per pound of tax credits that had been tapered away (or £4100 per year ish) plus they will pay £3300 less in tax / NI.

£3200. Tax is 20%, NI 12%.

So in reality despite making a transition from 40K to 30K they will only be £2600 worse off for a £10000 drop.

£2700

Likewise, if the family on 30K got a 10K payrise this would only leave them a bit better off because they would lose that level of tax credits plus have to pay 33% Tax / Ni on that 10K rise.

32%

People on lower wages dont realise this but families with 3 or more kids are barely any better off on 40K than they are on 30K yet every tom **** and Harry bthinks 40K earners should have everything taken off them.

7/10 Valid points raised, but must do better.

DeeMarie89

melly1980 wrote: »

no, thats not the way it works. I will try to explain and after doing so Zagfles can correct me :rotfl:


People on lower wages dont realise this but families with 3 or more kids are barely any better off on 40K than they are on 30K yet every tom **** and Harry bthinks 40K earners should have everything taken off them.

Not necessarily true. I was stating that too many people with 1 child who earn a decent wage (Like the OP) shouldn't have a right to anything. However, I think that entitlement should depend on the number of children etc.

I think all too often, people who earn a good wage, and get benefits, condemn the poorer peopl as lazy scroungers. However, some people work hard full time for minimum wage because they haven't got the skills or the ability to do higher paid jobs. Maybe people should concentrate on what they DO have, rather than what other people get to help them supplement what little they do earn, because at least they are earning themselves as well as getting help.

melly1980

zagfles wrote: »

If you insist...



£3200. Tax is 20%, NI 12%.



£2700



32%



7/10 Valid points raised, but must do better.

very concise. I didnt do too bad, you have taught me well!!!